Working Group - KCSIE 2026 changes - improve the guidance via the consultation process, promote more responses & more

I have similar experience to BonfireLady with mitigation in place to protect my DD via DSL/Head (until lack of governance collapsed it all but that’s another story) but rest of staff were clueless.

DSL even told me once that unlike himself and the Head (who I’d escalated to via complaints process), the Head of Sixth Form didn’t know anything about the topic/ risks. This was two years on from my initial meeting with the school so plenty of time for staff training to have happened.

My greatest achievement was not saying “are you fucking insane?” out loud to DD’s HoY in the initial meeting I’d asked for to raise as a safeguarding the apparent social contagion in DD’s year group (10 out of approximately 90 girls with trans identities that I was aware of). She even agreed that she’d support 10 girls having a leg amputated if it was hurting them (in response to me posing that as an analogous situation)

My point in relation to this guidance is that teachers are in no way qualified to be supporting any child’s social transition. Those that are keen to do so should be told clearly that they cannot and those that don’t want to should not be asked to do so.

Surely a unisex school uniform policy and ability for a child to change their name only with parental consent should cover all bases? No pronoun changes. sex-based data collection and single sex changing and toilets with third spaces for any child that needs it.

Any child truly so at risk from their parents that their wellbeing cannot be discussed with school should clearly be referred to SS

I’m so sorry you’ve had such a battle and yes, it’s concerning that there’s a gap between the part two and staff on the chalk face/ Wild West of approaches to GI.

Ofsted would see the blame being laid with the head. I don’t know about legalities. Heads can be sued. Heads are usually DSLs; not sure if can be different in MATs

It's really so incredibly sad and wrong that parents and children end up in this situation. DSLs who don't safeguard properly need to be removed from that job, and yet.....

I do think a lot of harm has come from DSLs - they are in the position of power here.

I hope we see more court cases, but it's a huge ask for parents.

It’s up to slt / safeguarding leads to make sure that the key knowledge is transferred and policies are implemented, understood and followed.

Otherwise it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Indeed.

I appreciate not all schools will behave like this, but I've experienced some interesting gatekeeping at this senior level to say the very least.

In fact, when I (politely, slowly, collaboratively etc) asked the school to do the knowledge transfer from the current KCSIE guidance etc, the harder they pushed back. We're now at an impasse and unfortunately I have to sit back and watch the impact of the school's behaviour on children at the school. Thankfully, I've been able to speak to key members of staff so that the impact on my own vulnerable daughter has been mitigated as much as possible. One of the reasons for keeping her where she is is that I've been making headway on that front - in many ways it's easier to stay put where I can clearly see what's going on there... and, almost more importantly, by whom.

When I say sit back and watch, I really did try to get them to see sense. Here's an excerpt from my attempt, going above the SLT/DSL, relating to this particular issue re gatekeeping:

From the behaviour of the staff throughout the school, it is clear that they have not been informed by the DSL (or head) about the key safeguarding issues relating to social transition. Although there is no statutory requirement for DSLs to train staff on part 2 of KCSIE, this means that any staff who may otherwise want to follow this statutory guidance are highly unlikely to be aware that.. it should be followed....

Even if the school has sent information out to staff about the existence of paragraphs 204-208 in this guidance (and the associated Cass Report), it is highly unlikely that this will have been framed in a way that makes it clear to them why sharing a personal belief in gender identity with vulnerable children could lead such children towards harm. This puts staff at risk of contravening Teaching Standards and of future legal challenge, if a child goes on to transition medically (as a result of being coerced to hold this belief while at [school]) then subsequently detransitions.

It's a wild west safeguarding-wise, when it comes to gender identity. Staff are allowed free reign to perform their allyship/activism re preferred pronouns and everyone is continuously keeping check on each other to make sure that they are being "kind". All championed from the top down. Consequently, safeguarding and clear boundary setting around biology and the law is in the bin. DSLs and SLTs are the key to how well (or not) statutory guidance is implemented. Backed up (or not) by governors of course.

Re the last part of my excerpt, I'm not sure who would actually be legally on the hook TBH. Probably the DSL, head and governors for failing to adequately train staff - rather than the staff themselves. But it's certainly an interesting question... and I think we're going to see a lot of legal cases in future against schools who actively maintained the pipeline to the gender clinics.

The fallout from this scandal will be huge in the future - in education as well as healthcare. Sadly, lots of children will have been harmed in the meantime.

This is all very concerning.

Agreed. I've always been a DSL along with another colleague - precisely because some situations are so complex that you need another "trained eye / ear". (Let alone the notion of a DSL as a predator).

There's also still a worry about the queer theory groups who are desperate to maintain their hold on schools and are still recommended to schools by organisations. Some of their "offers" to schools would certainly encompass "coaching" and it could be argued that some of it moves into grooming children.

The Surrey Pride paedophile Stephen Ireland (now imprisoned for multiple child sex offences) was in a local secondary school shortly before his arrest. He was a patron of the now closed Educate & Celebrate who had a known flasher boast of talking to primary children about sex and identity. Ireland was enabled by the local authority and police for years - see Julie Bindel's account:

https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/pride-and-predator-the-scandal-of

Mermaids have a grim history of employing porn advocates & paedophile adjacent trustees.

LGBT Youth Scotland have a horrendous history of convicted paedophiles amongst adults working there.

Gendered Intelligence offers "mentoring" from trans etc adults to gender confused school children (only £100 an hour) along with the safeguarding busting notion of running "youth groups" for 8 - 25 year olds!

https://genderedintelligence.co.uk/services/68-mentoring-in-education

Although I think direct links to these groups may have been removed from KCSIE & the RSE / Health Ed guidance, the DfE's guidance on the Equality Act still refers schools to Gendered Intelligence, GIRES & Stonewall. There's also this little section which explains why schools lacking time and / or in critical thinking, can be conned into using inappropriate policies written by adult queer theory lobby groups.

"......information from groups such as Stonewall or GIRES about the experience of gay or trans pupils in schools generally may help schools to understand how best to support their own LGBT pupils. Such information (or links to/extracts from it) may be included among a school’s published material"

para 5.22 - link below.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e3237ed915d74e33f0ac9/Equality_Act_Advice_Final.pdf

Schools need clear advice that the experiences and personal wishes of trans adults from lobby groups or as individuals do not constitute expert advice about children.

My specific concern with this, as Amanda Speilman pointed out on the today programme last week, is that there must be firm safeguards around the DSL/s and their decisions. Agree MUST be multi agency.

There unfortunately have been one too many incidents of DSLs being convicted of sexual offences against children and all it takes if for a DSL or DSLs to be fully signed up member/s of gender ideology for bias in decisions around this to occur.

I didn’t fully finish a reply to Noble on a different thread around this and agree that any “coaching” of what to say would’ve gross professional conduct. Coaching would more likely come from online sources. At the same time, nuanced bias can occur with a policy such as this, especially in some schools (side eyes brighton) in some areas (side eyes Brighton) where the multi agency backdrop is likely to be generally more biased across more services. Which is what I feel Amanda was alluding to.

Some dsl examples:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-68716990?app-referrer=deep-link

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/assistant-head-teacher-cornwall-fired-36777450

https://x.com/nca_uk/status/1722281513750786404?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

And a head; I’m not sure it was the DSL but heads usually are:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy12q2711eo?app-referrer=deep-link

Whilst they may not physically read part two, everything in it should be disseminated via polices, which all staff should also read, and training which all staff should attend. It’s up to slt / safeguarding leads to make sure that the key knowledge is transferred and policies are implemented, understood and followed.

Otherwise it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

Thank you for answering @noblegiraffe

Then I think it is impossible to protect children from affirmation seeing as Having a Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment is already an affirmed state of being. It is not neutral.

i.e. It is not the same as “questioning their gender and possibly going to decide to have gender reassignment one day”.

Gender Reassignment should not be possible for children.

Re the lack of explanation of what GI is... Is it possible to ask, if a child questions their gender and wants to know how they would feel if they were a boy, compared with how they would feel if they were a girl (as male or female body is not an aspect of gender), would they get a straight, objective answer as to what differentiates one from the other?

I think the vague, "whatever you feel like" does nothing to help clarify things for children, especially those who are ND or who need clear definitions to understand.

Guidance is surely needed about how staff can help kids navigate what it is to be a boy or girl, when the experts refuse to tell them, or when they rely on gender stereotypes.

This is why getting the trans guidance for schools has taken so bloody long. All the protected characteristic of gender reassignment requires is the proposal of the intention to transition. That's it, nothing medical, you don't even need to have started transition.

And children can acquire this protected characteristic in the same way as adults.

I think so (IANAL). The problem is every parent who's been faced with a school doing this has pulled away from taking them to court because of course in the centre, is their beloved vulnerable child who is not going to benefit from a court case with the school. So there's no case law. And that's why this has been able to continue imho.

If you work with looked after children you have to navigate getting parental consent for a school trip. If you sit in a safeguarding conference having to tell the participants - including parents - what a child has said in school about their abusive / neglectful home life you learn the principle is that if people keep secrets from parents, they're both unable to safeguard their own children or to make changes to keep children safe it they are the problem.

Safeguarding relies on transparency. Although I must add that there will be certain cases where confidentiality is maintained for fear of contaminating a court case. But that's the exception.

Also picking up your point about the pc of gender reassignment for children. i don't believe for a split second that it was ever thought that children below the age of consent should be included in this . 4 & 5 year olds? 9 year olds? 11 year olds? This is another fake fact that you hear all the men running the trans lobby organisations pontificating about.
Again - it's never been tested in the courts which leaves the space open for those determined to transition other people's children to push their anti safeguarding demands.

Please would you explain how they have this? Would this mean they are affirmed as having changed their gender by a doctor?

It seems a dangerous pathway to be so definite about a child already having the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment before they’ve even grown up.

The whole thing is rambling in places, It's clear that no child may use opposite sex facilities, dormitories, sport etc then tiptoes around whether children have the pc of gender reassignment. In talking about the importance of tackling bullying it suddenly throws in a sop to transactivists by saying:

"...the school or college must also be conscious of the rights of pupils and staff in relation to their religion or belief. However, schools and colleges supporting social transition might consider discussing options with pupils and staff such as using names instead of pronouns".

How is that going to work? "OK children. Fred is no longer Fred - he's a her/ she. Fifi Trixibelle for the forseeable.

"Do you think we should always call him / her his / her full name (Fifi Trixibelle) or he / she?" Anyone?

Written by people who've never navigated this stuff with children in schools.

@MrsOvertonsWindow
Today 16:37

You have explained that so well and you would think that point you are making, about how a school would need a court order before they could remove parental rights and secretly affirm a child as trans, and that they should be notifying SS and the police if they think the child is in danger, can hardly be argued against.

It seems so obvious now you say it.

Doesn’t it mean the present guidance, as it stands - for ‘rare’ instances - is against the law ?

Only Part One will be read by all school staff, which does not include the stuff on gender. That's in Part Two, so teachers will mostly not read it.

It should be noted that it says in the guidelines that some children questioning their gender will have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (thus the Equality Act will apply to them). Some won't, but the school guidelines should be written as if all children questioning their gender have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

I've read the section again and it lacks clarity.

".....However, in the rare circumstances where involving parents or carers would constitute a greater risk to the child than not involving them, the school or college should involve their Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) to determine what action is needed to safeguard the child, before the parents are contacted or any decisions are taken" (para 262)

It's good that it's qualified as "rare" but there needs to be a reminder that these decisions must be made in an inter agency context. Parental rights cannot be removed by the police or social services without seeking a court's permission and this must apply to schools.

It needs to be specific that this cannot be the solely the decision of the school - it's outside their legal rights and professional expertise. Given the tsunami of dodgy advice that transactivists have drowned schools in in recent years, the DSL needs to be clear that keeping a social transition secret from a parent is not an act a school can legally undertake - a safeguarding referral must be made if there are concerns and any decisions about excluding parents made in that interagency framework. SS & the police operate & understand that legal framework and are unlikely to be coerced into going against it.

It's really difficult to support kids that are gender questioning if you don't know what gender is.

I don't really know what it is - it seems to be a catch all for a lot of different things and its meaning seems to change in different contexts, I think sometimes quite deliberately. Sometimes it's used as a synonym for sex in other cases not. Sometimes it seems to mean regressive and generally negative sex-based stereotypes of dress and behaviour. Sometimes it's used in the context of an indefinable and unquantifiable 'inner essence' that people claim they feel to get what they want.

Why would you 'socially transition' someone because they like the harmful and restrictive stereotypes associated with the opposite sex? Surely schools should be embracing the fact that some girls like football and some boys like pink?

And as @BonfireLady points out not everyone believes that gender identity is a real thing so acting as if it's a common belief and doesn't need definition is a failure in itself.

Make it make sense.

Meant to add this

I also note that they currently link to the old draft guidelines which do discuss gender identity.

as Bonfire notes, the explicit definition of gender identity has been lost from current kcsie and I assume this will be updated to refer to kcsie? Either way this area needs to be stronger. (It includes trans people as the EA still stands .)

im pleased that there’s a line about chosen books in the RSE guidelines - has that made it across to kcsie? That’s really important too. I honestly don’t think it’s ok to leave it in RSE as I know that literacy coordinator won’t be aware of it and merrily wack any old inclusive book in on threading list. Also the arts department/ curriculum leads.

KCSiE will be read by all staff.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6970e7e67e827090d02d42e0/Relationships_education_relationships_and_sex_education__RSE__and_health_education__for_intro_1_September_2026_.pdf

also @womendeserveequalhumanrights’s posts; there needs to be a blanket agreement key synchronisation across kcsie and other areas of the school / education/ curriculum

letters for puberty sessions went out recently and referred the term gender. (Send school, but zero gender confused children.) however it’s so important that the same messages are spread across the school and embedded.

Yes excellent post @MrsOvertonsWindow

The social transition bit is a total mess and contradictory to so many of the other sections and indeed the law. 0/10 - fail, try again.

In fact any accommodation by the school to parental delusions about their child's sex and a desire to conceal their sex from everyone else makes it more likely those parents will try and buy puberty suppressing drugs illegally (since they cannot get them legally now). That alone should be a reason to not do it ever, at all!

The social transition bit is a total mess and contradictory to so many of the other sections and indeed the law. 0/10 - fail, try again.

In fact any accommodation by the school to parental delusions about their child's sex and a desire to conceal their sex from everyone else makes it more likely those parents will try and buy puberty suppressing drugs illegally (since they cannot get them legally now). That alone should be a reason to not do it ever, at all!