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

Usernamesareboring1 · Today 17:01

Genuine question - why do you and PP not want to read the KCSIE guidance? Why do you want to just assume OP is correct and anyone who says they're wrong has to provide you with a screenshot of a small section to read rather than you read the whole thing?

Genuine answer; the done thing is, when making a bold claim as you did, to provide evidence to support your claim. We can't expect people to believe, without evidence.

Don't be surprised that you get shot down, if you don't, or unable to provide evidence to support what you say, if asked.

Other posters have provided evidence to back what they say. Why are you unwilling to do likewise?

Not just this thread to be fair, it's not the first time safeguarding has been argued out on here and posters have accused people of caring too much about established safeguarding protocol and complained about them pointing out of a GC organisation was ignoring it, which is weird coming from people who claim to care about children as much as we do.

Well, laws and guidelines tend to change in the light of cases such as these, even if he looses on technicalities.

As Datun says, bring on the sunlight.

That's an interesting interpretation of a) what I said and b) what horrifies me.

I get it. I'll summarise my understanding of your position on this:

No matter how bat-shit a DSL's directive might be, even if it leads a child into an irreversible medicalised pathway, it needs to be followed to the letter unless the process to escalate it that you won't quote or screenshot is followed. If that escalation process prolongs and/or increases the child's exposure to potential harm (and potential isolation from a parent) so be it. That's "safeguarding" according to the bit of KCSIE I'm too stupid/lazy to find.

Am I close?

‘It is vitally important that educators should be able to raise reasonable concerns about a child’s welfare with the child’s parents without fear of losing their jobs. Nottingham College has made a serious mistake in dismissing Stephen, and we are ready to take the fight to a final hearing if necessary.’ Jon Heath, JR Levins

It was a reasonable concern about the college's actions.

You don't keep secrets from parents.

You put children and staff at risk

Not just this thread to be fair, it's not the first time safeguarding has been argued out on here and posters have accused people of caring too much about established safeguarding protocol and complained about them pointing out of a GC organisation was ignoring it, which is weird coming from people who claim to care about children as much as we do.

Really there isn't anywhere in KCSIE that tell you when you escalate to local authority safeguarding, no where that says how to escalate concerns about your organisation? 🤨

Yes, and I (now) know the numbers of the paragraphs they're described in.

But then, at the end of those, there's paragraph 74. He felt unable to raise it with his employer.

And the only place it's says you may NOT tell the parents of something the college has done, is in reference to a referral to children's services and where that referral might put the child at physical harm.

When that policy is safeguarding, I'm perfectly happy to focus on tea hers following it yes! If you are really horrified that a teacher would and should be aware of safeguarding protocol then that's weird of you, is there anything else regarding safeguarding we can disregard?

To me, it sounds like people are okay with people not following established safeguarding protocol as long as we agree with them and then where do we stand arguing for the safeguarding of children when we can just disregard it when it suits.

That's an interesting interpretation of this thread.

Yes. We can definitely agree on that.

Where we seem to part ways is that I'm happy to accept that the OP may lose (sorry OP!) because the bigger picture on safeguarding is the risk to children if a school or college wants to collude with a social transition that is kept secret from a parent. Whereas you seem to view any discussion about this as a distraction.

I didnt say anywhere I agreed with what the school was doing though, I've said repeatedly I disagree with OPs actions. To me, it sounds like people are okay with people not following established safeguarding protocol as long as we agree with them and then where do we stand arguing for the safeguarding of children when we can just disregard it when it suits. It's not enough for OP to have thought it would be futile, and he would have been maker a better case for himself and on principal if he had proved it was.

This ⬆️

Your explanation was much better than my exasperated sarcasm.

And if you're working with children and would rather concentrate solely on whether a teacher has followed a policy, even though you don't agree with social transition, I too am horrified.

There will be a lot of teachers who haven't read the whole of KCSIE. They only have to read part 1. Many are unaware of the section about gender identity and how that relates to the Cass Report. Again, all roads point to every DSL in every school and college as to whether they have made sure that staff understand the risks associated with social transition, as per KCSIE, Cass and the Gender Questioning Children guidance.

Really there isn't anywhere in KCSIE that tell you when you escalate to local authority safeguarding, no where that says how to escalate concerns about your organisation? 🤨

Okay. I was trying to establish if you were disagreeing on an ideological basis, or on an adherence to protocol basis.

Because, and I'm sorry if this isn't the case, but you sound as though you approved of what the school was doing and were searching for a reason to criticise the OP because of it.

Personally, I still think that the massive ideological capture has led to what the school was doing being incorporated as reasonable into protocols, when to me, it isn't.

I understand there's a process to go through, but I also suspect, that it would've been obvious to the OP that it was probably futile.

You will argue that you go through until it becomes futile enough to go further.

edited to add, which I get.

I want the day to come when schools are told they must not socially transition children, either in secret, in public, with or without, their parents consent

It's almost like safeguarding is a principal that should be followed regardless of whether or not we agree with someone's motives?

If you're genuinely working with children and can't bring yourself to read 186 pages about keeping children safe in education, I'm quite horrified.

Lovely tone you have.

I've repeatedly said I have and the parts you're saying aren't there.

You refuse to highlight where they are.

I disagree with it in general whether it's with or without their parents knowledge.

Blimey. So you're "GC". I hadn't realised I was being shot by friendly fire 😂

If you're genuinely working with children and can't bring yourself to read 186 pages about keeping children safe in education, I'm quite horrified.

Very clearly explained RobinHeartella

There is in many cases a lot of nuance and interpretation needed

Colleagues and I often disagree about who to best keep children safe within the classroom; we have professional conversations and work together to achieve those aims the best we can.

We are also very transparent about it. It's very important to be transparent. And with parents.

Every time a child is hurt by another child I call the parent without needing to follow any other protocols. (Bar making a record.)

Following the statement that "there are many unknowns about the impact of social transition" (it's not a neutral act) the child was being potentially hurt by the college. Especially without expert clinical / medical guidance.

I disagree with it in general whether it's with or without their parents knowledge, that's completely irrelevant to whether I want staff at colleges acting against safeguarding protocol. If my child's college was acting against KCSIE guidance I wouldn't be reassured that another staff member broke the guidance to tell me rather than them reporting the college appropriately through the channels, otherwise what does the guidance even mean? Given OP can't answer how the mother responded, she may have felt the same way.

I meant to add this screenshot ⬇️

Sorry, that was ambiguous, do you disagree with socially transitioning vulnerable children without their parent's knowledge, is my question.

I agree that you can disagree with the process of reporting that, at the same time.

Yep. To me it's looking like all roads lead to the DSL. Closely followed by the wider governing body as per para 70.

However, I'm with Datun (and my new Cryptic Thread Buddy) that the OP could lose the case on a technicality that is apparently in the KCSIE, but I've got to find it myself if I want to see it for not following whatever bat-shit policy was in place to promote the idea that maintaining a secret double life for a child (and forcing staff members and students to do the same when in the company of the child's family) is in their best interest.

Let the headlines roll ☀️ Datun I meant to quote your comment that I too would happily pay towards a tribunal that loses in this way. And again if it went to appeal. I wouldn't wish stress on the OP, and it would take a lot of strength to go into it accepting this could be a possible outcome.

But as this thread demonstrates, there will be people who want to focus solely on the OP's adherence (or lack of) to this bizarre approach from the college. Some of whom might say that talking about the child's social transition is "off topic", when from a safeguarding POV it is the topic.

I'd assume poster has read KCSIE which gives guidance on what must and should be disclosed, the difference between them, and how staff can raise concerns if they feel the college or school is putting a child at risk.

Do you also struggle with reading comprehension? Reread my post,or do you need me to quote the relevant bits? 😂