The enrichment framework asks schools to give every pupil access to five categories of enrichment. Civic engagement is the first, and the DfE defines it as volunteering, debating, school and college democracy, and community engagement. It was published on 15 June 2026, it is non-statutory, and from September 2026 Ofsted has regard to it under Personal Development.
This page covers the two benchmarks civic engagement sits inside, what counts as evidence for each, and the gap most schools find when they look properly. Everything quoted is from the framework itself, and the source is linked at the end so you can check it.
Two of the eight enrichment benchmarks matter here.
Benchmark 2.1 says every pupil has access to a range of activities covering, at a minimum, five categories. Civic engagement is one of them. Note the wording: every pupil has access. Not every pupil is offered something, and not the school runs an activity in this category.
Benchmark 4 is about who shapes the offer. Its first indicator says the school ensures pupil voice, alongside feedback from parents and staff, shapes the development and delivery of its enrichment offer. Its second encourages pupil leadership of enrichment activities, with staff support and appropriate safeguards in place.
So civic engagement appears twice, and in two different ways. Once as something pupils take part in. Once as the mechanism by which the whole offer gets designed. The second is easy to miss, and it is the one more likely to come up, because it applies across all five categories rather than one.
Here is the uncomfortable part, and it is worth sitting with before you fill in a self-assessment.
Most schools' answer to civic engagement is a school council: two elected representatives per class, twelve or twenty children, meeting half-termly. On paper that is a democracy activity, and it is a real one.
The difficulty is that Benchmark 2.1 says every pupil has access, and a council of twelve gives twelve children access.
That is not a technicality. The framework exists to halve the participation gap in enriching activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers by 2035. That is its stated purpose, set by the National Youth Strategy. And there is good evidence that the traditional school council is itself one of those gaps.
A few years ago we co-hosted an event with UCL's Institute of Education, where Isabel Kempner and Professor Jan Germen Janmaat presented the findings of their book School Councils: Democratic Forums or Exclusive Clubs?. Their research across school councils in Europe found that a pupil's social background predicts whether they get to take part. Significantly, at the level of the individual child and at the level of the whole school, and most strongly of all in England. We have written that research up in full on who gets elected to a school council.
So in the category the framework names first, delivered the way most English schools deliver it, the children taking part are disproportionately the ones who already had the most.
There is a hopeful finding in the same research, and it is the practical one. Gender came out balanced. The likeliest reason is gloriously dull: many schools simply stipulate one boy and one girl per class. Where the school sets the rule, the imbalance disappears.
Which tells you the fix is structural rather than motivational. You do not close a participation gap by encouraging quieter children to put themselves forward. You close it by changing who is in the room.
A school meeting 2.1 well on civic engagement can say all of these:
Every pupil, not every year group, has a way to take part in school democracy during the school day
Taking part does not depend on being elected, being confident, or staying after school
It happens regularly across the year rather than once a term
Pupils with SEND take part through the same route as everybody else, with the communication adapted rather than the activity replaced
The school can name what pupils actually decided, not only that a meeting happened
That last one is where most self-assessments come apart, and it is also Benchmark 7, which asks for an outcomes focus.
A route by which pupil views on enrichment reach the people who plan it, that runs whether or not anybody chases it
Evidence that something in the offer changed because of what pupils said
Pupils leading some enrichment themselves, with staff support
Views gathered from across the school rather than from the pupils who are easiest to ask
The DfE's own case study for Benchmark 4 is Newport Primary School, whose enrichment planning runs through class councils, where each class from reception to year 6 elects two representatives who gather views using quotes, votes and tally charts. It is worth reading, because it is a primary school doing this without anything elaborate.
One of our member schools, Halling Primary, put a real enrichment question to every class as part of its annual behaviour policy review: should golden time become enrichment time? That is Benchmark 4.1 in a single sentence, and it is far easier to evidence when the asking is routine rather than an event.
Under Personal Development, the question is whether enrichment is purposeful and varied, having regard to the framework where applicable. For civic engagement, the things that hold up are these.
| What you claim | What evidences it |
|---|---|
| Every pupil has access | A record showing each class took part, not a list of council members |
| It is regular | Dates across the year, not a single autumn election |
| Pupil voice shapes the offer | A decision that changed, with the pupil input that changed it |
| Pupils lead some of it | Named pupil roles, and what they actually ran |
| It is inclusive | Participation by class or group, so gaps are visible |
A note on honesty. Photographs of a council meeting and a copy of the school council constitution are the two most common things schools reach for, and neither answers any of the five rows above.
The DfE publishes a blank self-assessment tool and a blank action planning tool covering all eight enrichment benchmarks and all five categories. Both are useful, and both are a lot of empty boxes. If you have come looking for an enrichment framework template, that is the official one and it is worth starting there.
What we have done is fill in the civic engagement part of it, and it is the two sections above: what a strong answer to Benchmark 2.1 looks like, what a strong answer to Benchmark 4 looks like, and the evidence table. Take any of it for your enrichment plan or your governor report. It is a worked example rather than another blank template, and there is nothing to hand over to read it.
If it would help to see the mechanism rather than read about it, there is an anonymised school you can look round, with no sign-up, or you can ask us a question.
We are a charity and we are not neutral, so it is fair to say plainly what we do.
A Smart School Council keeps the elected council, because election and representation are worth learning. What changes is that every class holds its own short meeting on the same question, so the decision is made across the school rather than by the elected few. The council still leads it. The difference is who gets a say.
That is why the framework reads the way it does to us. Benchmark 2.1 asks for every pupil to have access, and our answer is that every class meets. Benchmark 4 asks for pupil voice shaping the offer with something behind it, and the record of what each class discussed, voted on and did is produced as the meetings run rather than gathered afterwards.
It is £199 a year for the whole school, with no per-pupil fees, across 700 member schools. If you want to see it rather than read about it, there is an anonymised school you can look round, with no sign-up.
No. It is non-statutory guidance. Schools do not have to follow it, and Ofsted's own position is that you do not need to meet it to reach the expected standard. From September 2026 inspectors have regard to it under Personal Development, which is a weaker thing than a requirement and still worth taking seriously.
Yes. The DfE names school and college democracy inside its definition of civic engagement. The question is not whether it counts, but whether every pupil has access to it, which is what Benchmark 2.1 asks.
No. It applies to England only.
Benchmark 2 is about pupils taking part in democracy as an enrichment activity. Benchmark 4 is about pupils shaping the whole enrichment offer across all five categories. A school can do the first and not the second.
Usually not. Most schools already do things in all five categories, and the work is describing it, finding the gaps and evidencing it. Civic engagement is the category where the gap is most often real rather than presentational.
Source: The enrichment framework for schools and colleges, Department for Education, published 15 June 2026. See also what a school council is and how school council elections work.
See it in a real school
Ready-made topics, a short meeting each class runs itself as often as suits you, and every child's view in one place rather than the same few voices. Have a look round an anonymised school, no sign-up.
Take the tourOr join a free walkthrough →
Used by 700 UK schools · a registered charity