“Outing” and “Transphobia”: Informing a parent that her child was being “socially transitioned” by a school/college

If an employer's policies don't comply with the law, or put a child at risk, doesn't that make them void?

Cass says social transition is not a neutral act.

The School are proactively helping a vulnerable child to a situation that could eventually lead to medical transition. It would appear they can only do it by cutting the parents out of the picture, and telling everyone else to do the same and lie to them. Including all the other vulnerable children, and their parents.

IF a teacher informing the parents what is happening is deemed to be an act worthy of the sack, then let's fucking have it.

Let's have the headlines, let's have the questions in Parliament, let's have the public outrage.

And maybe we'll get fewer people gleefully wagging their bloody fingers at professionals trying to protect vulnerable kids from this awful ideology.

An ideology that requires trusted professionals, teachers, your colleagues, vulnerable children and their parents to act like perfidious liars, in order to strip parents of their power and responsibility.

I hope the OP wins, but if he/she doesn't, it's still a win, because it will be a splashed across the front of every paper in the land.

exceptional circumstances that might trigger other Safeguarding concerns

If an lsa made an official safeguarding referral querying decisions, and raising concerns, I'd absolutely expect those exceptional circumstances to be shared as part of the risk management process

You cannot socially transition children and expect to hide it from their parents, and expect to make everyone else complicit, and to think you are some savior or even a help.

As I said before, If the reason is they think that there is a risk from home, they're directly putting the child in a very risky situation by telling that many staff and pupils

This ⬆️

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall to hear the DSL explain to staff that "even though the parents already know that their daughter is gender questioning, it's really important that we support [name] to lead a double life in a new name and with different pronouns, without their parents' knowledge, because...."??

However, I don't know if an employment tribunal will want an answer to this. I assume it's more likely that they'll be looking at whether the OP broke school policy in having this conversation with the mum. So does the school have a policy which explains why and how a parent should be kept out of the loop in this situation? Does it explain how far they have to go to maintain this duplicity without any outside agency (e.g. Children's Services) also supporting it?

From the Crowdfunder:

"Last September, I was informed that a vulnerable 16-year-old autistic girl was to be socially transitioned within the college, adopting a male name and “he/him” pronouns. I was also informed that her mother had not been consulted and that this information was to be deliberately kept from her."

And:

"I also maintain that my actions can be treated as a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996."

The school is acting as if being gender questioning and seeking social transition is the same as being gay e.g. it's private information and the child should decide how, when and to whom they should "come out". But that's TRA speak. Paragraphs 205 and 206 of the KCSIE guidance make it very clear that it's not the same thing and that the risk profile is completely different. It says that being LGB means a child is at risk of bullying. Being gender questioning comes with completely different additional risks, as laid out in paragraph 206 and the Cass Report to which it references.

If this wasn't about gender identity but something else which could lead a child to harm, would staff be expected to keep that a secret from parents too? E.g. if the school became aware that the child was involved in county lines stuff or was sharing radicalised ideas with other students related to religion? A child who is in danger of being radicalised by gender identity belief needs the support of their parents as much as a child in either of these other two scenarios. It's not the school's place to decide otherwise, unless it's already clear that this child's parents are a danger to them and the risk that the parents pose is being actively managed under its safeguarding/child protection policy - and Prevent if applicable.

Can I ask those who disagree with the OP - from a layman's point of view, there's a sort of either/or thing going on here.

IF the school are expecting their staff to lie to parents, and other children and their parents, otherwise they could be fired, should there not be a good reason?

If there is a good reason to do all this, against official advice, why aren't the staff told what it is?

Are staff really expected to lie to parents, other parents and children without being told why?

Especially as it is about something that the school is proactively doing, which, from what I can gather here, they are advised not to do.

But the case isn't (just) about whether the school was in the wrong for not following the guidance. The case is about whether they were in the wrong when they fired op for following it. (As I understand it)

It is a "should" not a "must" within those paragraphs, yes. But the whole document is something that schools must have regard for.

And as has been said above, "should" means that it should be followed unless there is good reason not to do so. So yes, a difference in law but what good reason could a school have for creating/upholding a double life for a child?

Again, you're misrepresenting KCSIE. It says should, not must. There's a significant legal difference.

Don’t be so absolutely ridiculous. Think it through for heaven’s sake.
The staff lie by omission to the parents
The staff punish those who aren’t prepared to lie
The staff threaten all sorts on the children if they are responsible for the parents finding out.
And yet it is public knowledge at school.
You won’t be able to keep it from the parents, and by showing to All the parents that you will lie to any of them when a TQ+ person says so, you destroy their trust in the school. You’re Policy is the problem.

When you and your ilk are up in an Employment Tribunal (again!) you are going to be made mince meat of (again!).

The damned policy is the problem. It won’t save you under Cross, and hoping it will just make you look like a Handmaid of low intelligence.

You cannot socially transition children and expect to hide it from their parents, and expect to make everyone else complicit, and to think you are some savior or even a help.

Too late for the edit:

This should have said pre-KCSIE 2024:

me without a knowledgeable teacher at any level of seniority, pre KCSIE

It definitely has been awful, but I'm very conscious that this thread isn't about my and my daughter's situation.

The important bit is the crossover with Steve's experience, even though I'm a parent and he was a member of staff. At the time when my daughter took her "neutral sounding" nickname at school we were still getting our heads around what gender questioning stuff was all about. So were the teachers who we spoke to most about her well-being. They asked us if we'd be happy with a name change at school. At home she'd told us she'd been "thinking about a different name" but hadn't gone any further than that. Suddenly it was already a done deal within the autism unit at school and we were asked to rubber-stamp it for use across the school. We were unsure what all of this meant. I wish we'd had a teacher with Steve's level of knowledge about social transition. Without a doubt, the school's approach to this was the start of a social transition. However, it was sharing our experience on MN that helped me understand that it was just a nickname.

Flip back to Steve's experience here and it's not just a nickname at all... it's a full-on social transition with pronouns too, led by the school. Two sets of parents in two different scenarios: me without a knowledgeable teacher at any level of seniority, pre KCSIE vs the Nottingham parent with a teacher that understood the risk and a statutory safeguarding document that laid the risk out, linking to the Cass Report for further details and flagging the importance of clinical support. The biggest question in the Nottingham scenario is whether the DSL was following the guidance or not.

So the mum knew the kid felt like they were trans, but she forbade them from changing pronouns etc at college? Or at home, or both?
Is the kid receiving counselling, through the school or separately? It's difficult to know how 'badly' what you did affected the situation and how much more there is to the background.

But if you breached no official policy with the college then the dismissal must be unlawful?

These things cannot be compared. Pregnancy is a protected characteristic too as another child is involved. - meant to say due to the health of the mother. There would be protections post birth obviously relating to the new born child.

These things cannot be compared. Pregnancy is a protected characteristic too as another child is involved.

Kcsie applies to post 16 colleges.

Need to remember that some colleges provide life skills courses to learners with send. Iirc (would need to check) kcsie is then up to 25.

Oh that makes sense.

It's just awful Bonfire, I'm so sorry to read of your experience.

But nail on head; schools and colleges are teaching children to lie to their parents.

They're teaching them to perform major lies that are repeated daily.

That kind of psychological manipulation, and adults demonstrating it, is going to have consequences on the development of these children. Not least to find lying easier.

Surely all those children were not a grave risk from their parents? And poor teacher who has to remember them all - it's a concern as it's shows how easily a teacher could use the wrong name. If the risk to the child (parent finding out) were that great, would the college really put the child in that position?

Out of interest if a 16yo disclosed they were pregnant and seeking a termination would the school tell the parents? I’m genuinely trying to figure out at what age telling the parents of such stuff stops? I’m no expert in safeguarding at all. I don’t disagree with what the OP has done as such and as a parent I’d be glad I was told. But do 16yos have a right to keep such information from their parents?

Of course he didn’t follow the correct channels because NONE of them end in speaking to a parent directly. Yes, I do work in an education setting and I would never be this unprofessional. It is absolutely imperative in an education setting that staff don’t take it upon themselves to inform parents of things outside their remit. Staff are not given all information (it’s very irritating at times and we often think it would be helpful if we were given more) and will have absolutely no idea what has or has not been addressed. I’d they SUSPECT that a member of staff has not acted appropriately, there is a ladder of management they can approachIf they’re not happy, they escalate - within the setting - if necessary, they can then escalate to the police. If they escalate to a parent then they fully deserve to be fired.

Just grabbing this bit from my earlier post again...

Are teachers meant to lie to parents about the names that they use for children at the school?

I've been on quite a journey with my own child's school. There are some things that have thankfully improved for the better (there are others that are still concerning but I'm not going to derail this thread) and one of them is the practice of hiding name and pronoun changes from parents.

I've written about this on a previous thread a while ago but worth mentioning here too:

I'm guessing it was about 18 months ago that I was talking to a staff member about my daughter and she used my daughter's school nickname during the conversation - at my daughter's request we had already reverted to her original one at home by this point. She suddenly stopped talking and said "oh, I don't know if I'm meant to have said that name". I said "it's fine, she uses both". The response (paraphrased).... "Oh thank goodness. I get really lost now where there are so many children that we have to use different names for and their parents don't know". And yes, she was definitely talking about social transition. My daughter was gender questioning at the time and this was part of the conversation I was having with the staff member. Her response was in this context. She was talking about how different it all is these days she she's getting more used to it now etc.

I spoke to a different member of staff who I trusted about my concern with these secret names (and pronouns - I asked, it was both). I don't know when they finally changed their approach, other than it was some time prior to a meeting I had with them a few months later where they told me they had done so. But FFS. Why would a school expect staff to lie to parents about their child? And yes, it is a lie because the school has created a whole new narrative about the child on paper - a double life, if you like.

You’re completely missing the point. In a sense it’s irrelevant what you, I or anyone else thinks. There are correct channels in a professional capacity and this individual did not follow them

Yes it's irrelevant what anyone thinks

There are correct channels for gender questioning children and the college did not follow them.

They had no policy so should follow kcsie and the gender Q guidelines. If they were working outside the guidelines they should have had a policy to follow. Ans good reasoning for it.

Agreed.

The DSL's role in this is critical to understand.

All of this ⬆️

But especially this bit ⬇️

And if it was that serious, surely risk assessments were drawn up (so that accidental information didn't get to the mother) and shared widely
(ppl can't follow a risk assessment they don't know about)

As has been said by a few PPs and the OP too, everyone at college knew that this child was using a different name and different pronouns. This then impacts everyone who comes into contact with this child because they have to make a decision about whether they will be a part of this social transition or not, even if they are concerned about the unknown impact of this on a gender questioning child as per KCSIE and the Cass Report that it references.

And perhaps their concerns include whether a child's social transition might impact others too e.g. will the boys at college find that they are now sharing a changing room with this female? What if this female became pregnant on a school trip after sharing a dorm with boys? Is this an acceptable risk from the school's perspective? If so, do all children have an opportunity to go into mixed sex accommodation? What about those whose religion doesn't allow this? etc etc. Are teachers meant to lie to parents about the names that they use for children at the school?

Hopefully the tribunal will be looking at the bigger picture and asking questions that help unpick whether the DSL was ignorant or activist, if this kind of policy and risk assessment hadn't been in place.

There are correct channels in a professional capacity and this individual did not follow them. If he was unhappy with the procedures being followed then he needed to raise this through the correct channels.

What makes you think he didn't do this? Are you part of the safeguarding team at the college or another employee? If so, I don't think you should be commenting here. If not, you don't know all the facts.

There will of course be instances where the parents have not been informed because it’s non-statutory guidance.

What could possibly be a reason for not telling a parent that their child is being socially transitioned at school, when the parent is already aware that the child is gender questioning?

According to the OP, the parents knew about the child being 'gender questioning'. The matter he discussed with the child's mother was that the school was socially transitioning her child and deliberately withholding this action from her.

How is telling the parents of a gender questioning child (when the parents know about the child's trans identity) that the school is socially transitioning their child and deliberately keeping this hidden from the parents 'potentially dangerous'? Where do you think the danger comes from?

Why were social services or the police not involved if they thought the parents were potentially a danger to their child?