Sex not gender, No Outsiders changing the Equality Act, DepHead/DSL captured

Well, an update of sorts.

We decided, to cover all bases, that we would send another email, highlighting exactly what our concerns about the book were. It is written, and we were ready to send it today.

But.

Last night, the DepHead phoned one of the parents who signed the email we sent 3 weeks ago (the very mild, watered down one), and the DepHead had a go at the parent for her involvement.

I've got to get more details, but now it seems that the DepHead is targeting and bullying individual parents!

Yes, @ScrollingLeaves , one of our concerns about the narrative in the book is about how prescriptive it is about the wonderful new life that they will all lead.

There is no mention of the actual mum. There is no mention of how the child may feel confused and upset. It's just all glitter and sparkle.

I know there are some wonderful posters here who are trans-widows.

Does anyone know, what are the stats on a marriage/partnership breaking down, when one partner transitions?

Thank you @Villagetoraiseachild , this is exactly how we feel.

We are currently debating our next step.

The most recent email we sent, we toned down massively, so we are debating:

1. Send a final email, making our concerns absolutely clear about the totalitarian and inflexible beliefs presented as fact, in the book, as well as the harmful sterotypes.

This will add 5 days to the timeline, but could then support us in a formal complaint, as we could then say that we have been super clear with our concerns. It would also allow us to refute the unsaid but implied notion that we a bigoted lot.

1. Go straight to formal complaint. They aren't going to listen to us.

I'm leaning towards 1, as it allows us to expand on our concerns, which we removed from the last email, and makes it crystal clear what the issue is.

Formal complaints have to be sent using a MAT form and can be submitted by more than one person.

We were wondering if we should submit complaints about;

1. The school appears to be teaching gender identity, despite guidance against this.
2. Our concerns about the lack of transparency from the school.
3. Our concerns about how the school has handled our concerns, including attempting to clamp down any discussion.

Edited to add the word "form"

Timeline

24/11/22
I spoke to the Assistant Head, about a No Outsiders poster which incorrectly showed "gender" rather than "sex" as 1 of the 9 Protected Characteristics. The other 8 PC's were as written in law. Assistant Head stated that he thought the PC was actually "gender" in the Equality Act.

06/01/23

I spoke to the Head about the poster. She referred me onto the DepHead, as head of EDI. The Head stated that the organisation responsible for creating the poster were "the experts". No Outsiders sell their products as "teaching the Equality Act in schools"

11/01/23

I spoke to the DepHead, who stated that the poster didn't actually state it was about the 9 Protected Characteristics, therefore there wasn't an issue that one PC had been changed. I also reminded the DepHead that school teachers are required to be able to name the 9 PCs correctly, by Ofsted.

26/01/23

Email from the DepHead to me, reiterating that the poster doesn't show the 9 Protected Characteristics, and included communication from the No Outsiders organisation, stating that they prefer to use "gender" and not "sex", as children will giggle over "sex", and that using "gender" makes it easier to then explain gender reassignment.

07/02/23

I emailed the DepHead (cc'd in the Head) reminding the DepHead that schools are required to teach the 9 Protected Characteristics, as written in law. Secondly, that this is a political subject, and schools are required to remain politically neutral, and there are concerns about the lack of neutrality from No Outsiders. Thirdly, that the legal responsibility for content used by the school, from outside organisations, resides with the school. Lastly, that the use of imprecise language significantly disadvantages and excludes students with SEND, EAL and students from a different culture.

24/02/23

I shared my concerns on the closed WhatApp group for the year group. This was prompted by a survey sent out by the school that day (from Diversity Role Models), which asked the questions "How confident do you feel that the school protects children and parents with a protected characteristic?" I felt that if the school did not acknowledge the 9PC's correctly, they could not protect them.

Friend H emailed the DepHead to add her concerns about the political and controversial nature of gender identity ideology, and especially the importance of using clear, biologically based language with the children.

27/02/23

The DepHead emailed me to inform that the incorrect posters were removed, and would be corrected to read "sex equality", instead of "gender"

02/03/23

The Assistant Head phoned me to warn me of breaking the parental code of conduct, and that I should not be discussing concerns about the school on social media (at the point, the school policy (updated 2021) did not mention WhatsApp as a form of social media). A whole school email was sent out later that week, adding WhatsApp to the examples of social media.

17/03/23

Friend D emailed the Head and CC'd the DepHead on the behalf of herself and a group of concern parents, about the resources used in RSE, and requested a meeting.

21/03/23

Email received from the DepHead inviting the concerned parents to a meeting at school.

19/05/23

Meeting at school, with the DepHead, the Assistant Head and the Head of RSE.
RSE documents were looked, parents were reassured that gender identity is not taught at this school, and if it is discussed, it is as a belief. RSE topics and resources are to be shared with all parents at the beginning of terms.

02/02/24

Message home for one of the junior year groups, states that "She is my Dad" was used as the reading comprehension book for the past week. This has a very strong message about gender identity ideology, portraying it as fact, and strong (and harmful) sexist stereotypes.

07/02/24

Friend H emailed the Head, CC'd the DepHead on behalf of herself and concerned parents, expressing concern that parents were feeling betrayed by the school, due to the nature of the book used, and how it has not been shared in advance.

09/02/24

Email from Friend H acknowledged by the school.

26/02/24

Email from the Head to Friend H, CC'd the other concerned parents. Stating that the school does not teach gender identity ideology, and that as the book was not part of the RSE curriculum, it was not shared with parents in advance. The Head also states that the children were being taught about different types of families (due to it being LGBQT+ History Month), and that inclusion at the school is most highly prized in parents and child feedback to Ofsted. The Head states at all stereotypes are challenged, however with no clarification of how the sexist stereotypes portrayed in the book are challenged.

As of this afternoon, there are 5 parents willing to take this to formal complaint. We're just discussing whether to do this as one complaint, or several.

One parent has reported back that their son was told in assembly last year, that some children choose to be boys, some choose to be girls, and some choose to be neither.

I've typed up the timeline of conversations, and actions, from my point of view. I'll copy it below, as best I can.

Also, the Headteacher did not address any of our concerns about the book (portraying Gender Identity Ideology as fact, and harmful sexist stereotypes)

Lastly, that inclusion is highly prized at the school, by parents and children (according the the Ofsted feedback) you exclusionary witches

This was despite us raising the concern that allowing GII to be presented in this way, as fact, is directly excluding some of the children.

Sorry to leave you in the lurch, internet packed up!

The Headteacher replied. Ultimately, as the book is not used as part of their RSE curriculum, but as reading comprehension, they did not need to share it with us in advance. Also, we had been warned that the children would be reading about different types of families (that's all it was, not more specific) as part of LGBTQ+ History Month so we have no reason at all to feel betrayed

Well, it's off to formal complaint we go.

Absolutely! Chip, chip, chip at the block.

It's so interesting, what I see with the late teenagers I teach. Many are quiet on the subject, quite a few just roll their eyes.

It is only the children with pre-existing struggles (ASD, mental health struggles, potentially gay) who show any interest at all in the ideology.

In other news, we are still waiting to hear back from the primary school.