“A school faces a threat of legal action over policies that protect all children – so we’re fighting back.”

good luck OP. will the school be named on this thread? curious to know why this has to be kept private.

@SingleSexSpacesInSchools pm me. Happy to discuss.

It is funny in a WTF kind of way.🙈

And if that is what safeguarding in schools end up having to manage
😬🚩

Sorry I worded that loosely I ment if it ends up in Court

I would like to read the actual detail they claim can be used to get around the school legislation. The legal firm advisor would be stupid not to have at least one cover their professional pensions ases section. If one or all of the board are pushing the agenda the advice and interpertation may be skewed.

The advice would have to be based on some kind of case law and imo if the school had supporting cases to justify what they are doing they would have sent you a PFO letter with details.

I will say the staff action is more likely a calculated risk of you not having the finances to take on the school. If you do the staff have to prove the policy old and new has been signed off by the board and was lawful since inception.

The head and the senior staff have the most to lose on a personal level as they are the educators who decided to put a possible erection in a room full of underage girls

The DfE told me who was ultimately responsible regarding toilet design and safety of their pupils. It will be the same for changing rooms. This is their response summarised:

When replying to the FOI request on toilet door gap safety and medical conditions, the DfE said, ‘Schools are responsible for the health, safety and welfare of pupils (School Premises Regulations/Independent School Standards) and this would include supporting pupils with additional needs. Where a pupil has a special requirement, suitable toilets must be provided to meet that need under the School Premises Regulations/Independent School Standards: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/410294/Adviceonstandardsforschoolpremises.pdf (page 8).’
‘In terms of health and safety in schools, all schools must adhere to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The employer in a school must take reasonable steps to ensure that staff and pupils are not exposed to risks to their health and safety.
The employer is required to ensure that a risk assessment is conducted and measures put in place to minimise any known risk. Employers, school staff and others also have a duty under common law to take care of pupils in the same way that a prudent parent would.
The employer in a school will vary depending on the type of school. For community, voluntary controlled, community special, and maintained nursery schools this is the local authority. For foundation schools, foundation special schools and voluntary aided schools the employer is the governing board. For academies and free schools, the employer is the governing board or academy trust and the proprietor is the employer in independent schools.
Schools must have a health and safety policy in place which the headteacher is responsible for implementing.
Furthermore, the department’s statutory guidance ‘Supporting Pupils with Medical Conditions at School’ (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-pupils-at-school-with-medical-conditions3) makes it clear to schools what is expected of them in taking reasonable steps to fulfil their legal obligations in relation to toilet facilities.
Any concerns about a school’s procedures should be raised directly with the school in question in the first instance as schools are autonomous institutions run by a governing body, with day-to-day operational decisions such as access to toilets during lessons, managed by the headteacher.’

In addition, when replying to the FOI request on toilet door gap safety and assaults on girls the DfE said, ‘Schools and colleges have a critical role to play in protecting children and keeping them safe. Keeping children safe in education’ (KCSIE) is statutory guidance that all schools and colleges must have regard to when carrying out their duties to safeguard and promote welfare of children.
The KCSIE guidance is very clear that best interests of children must always come first where there are any concerns action should be taken immediately.
Amongst other things, KCSIE sets out that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility and that;

• All staff have a responsibility to provide a safe environment in which children can learn.
• All staff should receive safeguarding training.
• All staff should know what to do if they have a concern about a child.
• All schools and colleges should have an effective child protection policy that also reflects the approach to child-on-child abuse, including: procedures to minimise the risk of it occurring; how allegations will be recorded, investigated and dealt with; clear process on victim and perpetrator support, clear statement that child on child abuse should never be tolerated or passed off as just part of growing up; and the different forms on child on child abuse can take. The guidance has been further strengthened for 2022 – ensuring schools have even clearer guidance on how to deal with reports of sexual abuse. This revised guidance now includes the ‘sexual violence and sexual harassment advice ‘which puts it on a statutory footing to give the issue the prominence it deserves.’

I understand that school heads are ultimately personally responsible for health and safety. I wonder if there is any legal route whereby you can threaten the head directly and personally with legal action if he/she continues to fail in the duty of providing a safe changing environment for the girls?
Things always seem to look a little different when someone is held personally responsible rather than it being the school/the LA etc

No, indeed there is not!

Governors are allowed to not publish some minutes if they could be legally sensitive. They are FOI-able though - not sure if you @SingleSexSpacesInSchools have made such a request?

I think they could be fascinating and surely pertinent to any legal challenge.

That’s a very plausible scenario I think.

So the school governors have initiated contact with the misogynist GLP?

I think that the SLT think (because frankly they're stupid) that if they put a male bodied individual in the box marked 'female' despite all physical reality, they can claim it's still a single sex space (i.e. legally compliant). So as long as they call Pete 'a girl' then they get away with Pete watching the girls change. And they're very determined not to think or ask how the girls feel about that.

Well, that didn't work in Darlington. I suspect it's even less likely to work when it comes to schools as children have even less ability to avoid being forced to strip off in front of a person of opposite sex than employed nurses.

But following that reasoning through - someone who says they have a clear DBS has a clear DBS even though in reality they don't. An adult male who wants to join the school in year 7, claiming to be 12, can join the school because he's 12 even though in reality he's 42.

If it works for one thing it has to work for all, and what a massive safeguarding failure that would be.

I would suggest that it is more likely worded that the male (female) student would try sue under their PC of Gr of being "excluded" from the girls single sex spaces.

And they are going to try rely on not having alternative provision and will be carefully worded to avoid the school being able to sue them for poor professional work product.

The school do not have to share the legal advice as the presumption is that any legal advise is privileged as it will be used against them if disclosed.

I would say the case by case safeguarding policy is a bluff. I cant (tbh almost cant) imagine someone being stupid enough to write a risk assessment which staff need to apply to an individual student on % risk of engaging in sex offending etc. What staff member would put their name to it when its asking for a guestimation of non-contact child sex abuse?

IIRC they claim they've received legal advice. It may be from the captured LA so 'legal' advice. And given the GLP, there are plenty of lawyers who claim they can't understand the crystal clear SC judgement.

So I agree with you but I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that they've received advice to carry on forcing girls to share their spaces with male bodies.

Also IIRC (and I don't have time to go back to check) they've refused to share their 'legal advice' with the OP. Or the generic safeguarding risk assessments. So I think there's a reasonable chance they don't exist.

I mean really anything is possible with people who are willing to lie to the extent they claim that as soon as a male bodied boy utters the magic words 'I'm a girl' the safeguarding based around sexed bodies fails to apply.

No legal advice will say ignore the law which 2 block single sex provision for students only.

The legislation makes specific provision for single units for students who need adapted toilets so the school can not even argue that moving an individual child into an adapted space is discrimination.

If I was in their position I'd be arguing to comply with the law immediately, insisting my argument was recorded in the minutes, and if SLT refused, I'd be resigning in protest with a very clear letter as to why.

I wonder if any governors have taken this step. If any have stepped down recently, that may be the case.

Those that stay are colluding.

Edited to add: I might have an intermediate step where I asked to look at the legal advice they've allegedly received and compare to other advice available (and there is now plenty) and existing court cases. I may suggest using another firm to see if the advice is the same and scrutinise if current firm has any biases. That is the most I would do before resigning. I.e. I'd give them a chance to do the right thing and get independent legal advice however it's pretty clear that the situation is not legal so then I'd resign.

100% this. Ignorance will not be an excuse they can use. Nor 'oh it's so complex' as OP has been as clear as it's possible for a human to be to outline the breach of the law and the safeguarding risk to girls.

If they have such massive comprehension problems that they can't understand his crystal clear letters then they're not fit to be a governor. If you're too stupid to understand something so well explained then you need to step down.

They're continuing to break the law and put girls in harms way knowingly. This will not go well for them.

Thank you Keep - this is so true.

I understand the responsibility governors have as I have had a similar position. There’s so many areas you have suddenly got to be experts in.

It's not even as if they've had to do any research for themselves - they've literally been spoon fed details and references for the risks and legalities. They can't claim that they didn't know.

Will you be naming the school publically? I know most of us here know which school it is but afaik it’s not known more widely. I understand you need to protect your daughter so I understand your reluctance but without putting the name up there drumming up support will continue to be hard. If you could perhaps post the news articles from a few weeks ago on some Brighton specific FB groups you’d get a lot of responses if you said ‘this is referring to xx’. Of course being Brighton you’d probably be called a bigot umpteen times but you’d probably get some useful DMs.

My neighbours teen daughters both go to this school and I’ve been tempted to ask about the issue so many times but I’m worried about falling out if they turn out to be on the other side of the issue.

I was looking at today’s news and thought about the relevance of permanency. How everything is documented.

So this post is to the Headteacher and Governors:

‘Blair's assertion in 1996, that "my project will be complete when the Labour Party learns to love Peter Mandelson", was seen as prophetic in late September 2009 when Mandelson was enthusiastically received at the party conference in Brighton.’ Wikipedia

Very different topic but the same sentiment in that what you argue for now may come back to haunt you.

You have really got to put your faith in your convictions that this is the best safeguarding solution for all your pupils. Because what ever decision you back now you need to be able to justify that it’s the best for all children and for all future children at your school. You have got to risk assess, based on evidence, whether single sex provision or mixed sex provision is safer in your secondary school. What could go wrong with your ‘project’?
In 30 years what would people say when they look back at what was documented that you said and agreed to? Blair could be forgiven in that he’s not a fortune teller. But the difference is you have lots of evidence that allowing boys to change with girls won’t work. A mixed sex environment doesn’t work in toilets or changing rooms and girls suffer the most and also girls and anyone vulnerable (medically or mentally) if all designs are changed from traditional single sex to mixed sex. You will look really silly in court trying to deny the weight of statistics, evidence and common sense. Do you really want to lose your dignity over this?

I understand the responsibility governors have as I have had a similar position. There’s so many areas you have suddenly got to be experts in. But think about the consequences to everyone, including yourselves. I think the OP will win but your words will still be printable.