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

This is a brilliant post. It shows so clearly why a woolly and vague KCSIE isn't fit for purpose.

But arguably the law that already exists should have stopped a lot of what is described here and didn't. I think the main thing that will turn this around is people losing their jobs over safeguarding failures (such as forcing girls to strip in front of boys in order to prop up an unscientific and illogical adult ideology).

There are enough schools - such as my DD's - where there is proper safeguarding and single sex spaces and the SLT did a good job of putting the children first. Not all adults in education have failed in their duties here and / or been gullible enough to truly believe the Emperor isn't naked despite the evidence of their own eyes. Those who did fail would likely do so again for the next nefarious agenda to remove safeguards from children and really need to go.

@BonfireLady is absolutely right that there are key positions in every school who will be driving genderism in those schools not following the law / safeguarding. A DSL, for example, does need to be held to an appropriate professional standard and this has not yet happened. Hopefully soon.

No problem at all re the delay.

It's quite chilling that you were referred to Children's Services, presumably for your lack of cooperation.

Definitely very chilling. I guess it could be summarised as being for that reason, if you mean not falling in with what appears to be quite an eyebrow-raising agenda.

I think your experience where your daughter wasn't sure if she was a boy yet the school wanted to plough ahead is awful.

Their "ploughing ahead" was at a whole-school level. My voice was (and remains) inconvenient here. Thankfully, I've been able to stay ahead of it having too much of an impact on my daughter. Mostly by having a few staff members take the time to think critically, even if they aren't still joining all the dots. See point g below.

turning that ship around is going to need equally strong moral instruction in the opposite direction, not merely DfE direction. (I.e. you are potentially harming children if you affirm rather than vice versa).

This ⬆️

I don't know who this moral instruction could come from though.

It needs to be in the KCSIE guidance, Working Together and NHS guidance. It needs to state clearly that even with parental support to transition, a child is at risk from becoming locked in to a feeling that they need to alter their body to match a belief (in gender identity) that they may not hold for life. Yes, the Finnish study is great but it won't be recognised by UK health or education bodies any time soon. The Cass Report talks about the dangers of social transition. The interim report (in 2022) made it very clear that this needed to be understood in schools. The final report (in 2024) was less clear on this and this lack of clarity has impacted the KCSIE 2024, 2025 and the proposed 2026 guidance.

Schools that want to find the loopholes in this draft guidance will do so. I think it comes down to:

• at least two out of three key positions being held by people with nefarious motivations: head, DSL, head of governors. The 3rd person can be easily manipulated in this scenario, including tapping in to their own ego
• the top-down culture that this will create e.g.

a) poor staff training on KCSIE. Part 2 could be selectively ignored or downplayed
b) poor governance on curriculum content, such as gender identity being folded into lessons. The latest one at my daughters' school was the class being taught how to say "I identify as a boy/girl" in Spanish. There have been more examples in other subjects
c) activism running unchecked e.g. LGBTQ+ posters etc, assemblies, library book selection
d) Be Kind encouragement everywhere, including preferred pronouns in staff emails to children
e) coercion that stops children understanding what biological sex means and why it can be important to know this.. "it's important to use someone's preferred pronouns as a sign of respect"
f) boundary violations e.g. male staff entering girls' spaces (changing rooms, toilets, residential accommodation) because everyone has been taught that they are women
g) staff feeling too afraid and/or confused to call any of this out

And lastly, but probably most importantly, teachers having private, social grooming conversations with children where children then request social transition and everyone is expected to go along with it. I think this is where I proved to be a problem because I got there first, before any of the dangerous staff members had had a chance to have too many words in my daughter's ear. I suspect that at least one had been doing for a while (particularly when my daughter was in the school LGBT club) but thankfully she hadn't got any further than thinking she might not be a girl by the time she brought the conversation to her dad and me.

From your experience as a teacher, do you see a top-down leadership culture (in at least 2 out of the head, DSL and head of governors) that fully understands this issue and how it can be mitigated at a whole-school level? If so, I imagine the KCSIE guidance will work in your school. If not, I would be very wary of what these gaps can lead to.

Re the study you posted @noblegiraffe

^4.6 Clinical Implications
Regardless of gender, adolescents suffering from GD present with excessive psychiatric morbidity. Subsequent to medical GR, psychiatric treatment needs appear to increase. It should be noted that in some individuals, medical GR appears to be linked to deterioration in mental health. Possible mechanisms and vulnerable subgroups should be explored in future studies. The effects of medical GR and the expectations of the patient must be addressed before commencing the treatment. The considerable severe psychiatric morbidity prior to contacting the GIS, and its increase over time, suggest that for some of these adolescents, GD may be secondary to other mental health challenges. This underscores the need to thoroughly assess and appropriately treat mental disorders among those seeking GR before and after undergoing irreversible medical treatments. Psychiatric needs must be adequately met.^

This conclusion from the study you posted makes it seem essential that all teachers are instructed in the need not to affirm given that a child presenting with gender problems is highly likely to have complex psychological needs that need to be met, not affirmation which will not automatically help.

@BonfireLady apologies for the delay in replying to your post (end of term has been manic and I wanted to reply properly) and thank you for giving me such a thoughtful answer.

It's quite chilling that you were referred to Children's Services, presumably for your lack of cooperation. I think your experience where your daughter wasn't sure if she was a boy yet the school wanted to plough ahead is awful. Schools and staff really need clear instructions and this is why I think the current guidance being in part 2 rather than part 1 (which has to be read by all staff) isn't strong enough.

Up till now the insistence that instant affirmation is the only acceptable approach, and indeed the only moral response has been so strong that turning that ship around is going to need equally strong moral instruction in the opposite direction, not merely DfE direction. (I.e. you are potentially harming children if you affirm rather than vice versa). I don't know who this moral instruction could come from though.

The new research from Finland that came out a couple of days ago that shows that children's mental health deteriorates after transition could be helpful here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.70533 (It is far better than anything that could possibly come out of the UK gender clinics).

@BonfireLady It is a high school not primary, though I'm sure they're not alone. And seemed to have approval at all official levels inside and outside the school. I'll DM the links.

(Ps I'm not going to edit that post but obviously we already know it's not the last scandal. Yes, you'll probably also have to think about your own role in the latest one: figuring out why the BBC didn't act on concerns that were raised to it in May 2025 about Scott Mills. But don't get distracted. Focus. There are thousands of children being impacted around the world here. You could make a difference)

Thank you @MrsOvertonsWindow . Without trying to sound like a sycophant, and probably failing (😬😂) it's thanks to the knowledge I've gained from posters like you (there are many others 💐) that I'm in any position whatsoever to have informed conversations. I had to learn what the word safeguarding meant - I thought I knew(ish) but prior to people like you (and you are very good at this ❤️) patiently helping to demystify it, it felt like it was everything and nothing all at once. Like it was the magical word that just needed to be said solemnly enough and everyone knew what that meant. Almost like an emperor's new clothes situation where nobody (me included for quite a while) wanted to say "hang on a minute, what does this word even mean?" I'd already received plenty of (intentionally.....?) shaming moments from the school DSL about my ignorance... and reassurances of course that this didn't matter because the school had it all sorted and were the right professionals for the job. Even at that point, little red flags were waving in my mind but I had nothing to hold onto. This weird word just didn't feel in my grasp. I think there might be a question further up this thread, or if not elsewhere on a recent thread, about this bamboozling word from another PP.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay I didn't find that video when I did a quick Google just now but I did come across a video from a Scottish primary school that fits that description, including being picked up by the national press. I won't post the link but I will say this..... Written in open letter fornat:

Dear Mr Tim Davie,

Fuck you. I'm glad you ended up shamed by that dossier into recognising your contribution towards the BBC's lack of impartial reporting. You too Deborah Turness. But how dare the pair of you get away with this utterly false narrative that your resignations were all about that Trump video splicing. Yes, that was terrible: creating a video from spliced clips as if it was one speech is definitely worthy of resignation. But there was far more in that dossier, not least some very damning information about the BBC's role in promoting the belief that we all have a gender identity and why (apparently) this is more important than biological sex.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on where you think the threshold between disinformation and misinformation sits when you performatively tell us that you "hope that as we move forward, a sensible, calm and rational public conversation can take place about the next chapter of the BBC". So, in the spirit of these words from your resignation letter, here's my sensible, calm and rational request:

'Now that the dossier has highlighted the BBC's significant role in helping vulnerable children to believe that they are trapped in the wrong body and need accommodations in school, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and more, please remove all content from your news and programming (online, radio, TV, social media... all of it) that has contributed to this HUGE safeguarding scandal. Tomorrow, April 2nd, is your last day. So you've still got time to put this right, before you pop to the pub for some leaving drinks. What's to lose?'

After you've left and you find yourself with a bit of time on your hands, there's still more you can do. Open up the KCSIE guidance consultation, get yourself onto some useful forums (hi if you're already here 👋🙃) that can help you decode what you're looking at and put this right. You've got until April 22nd, so can fit it in amongst all those other retirement projects you'll be doing.

You also say in your resignation letter that you "will always be a passionate cheerleader for civilised society, a strong BBC and a thriving UK." Go for it! Despite my opening words, I would be genuinely delighted if you crossed over that golden bridge and added your voice to help make a difference here. I recognise how much you love and value the BBC and its place as a trusted institution. You might not believe me but I do too. This isn't the first scandal and sadly it won't be the last. What matters most is how scandals are dealt with once they're exposed. I look forward to seeing what you can achieve before those drinks tomorrow and afterwards. Cheers 🍻

BL

There is a Scottish state secondary school which produced a video all about how they support and include their "trans" children on their school website. It's distressing and occasionally disturbing to watch. There were articles in the press 3 or 4 years ago when it won a Scottish govt award but I wont identify the school or link to it because IMO the video itself is a safeguarding risk to the (very identifiable) children and families in it. (So please don't identify it here.)

From a guidance teacher "It's not our place to contact home to effectively out that person so we need to establish who knows what .. if home are aware... but that's not necessary" before changing names and pronouns at school, it's all on a child's say-so, and (from what another teacher says) if parents don't know then they remember to switch names and pronouns on parents' evening.

I check every now and again to see if that video has been taken down. Not so far. I will start to feel confident that safeguarding has won over ideology in Scottish schools when that video quietly disappears from their website.

What a fantastic post @BonfireLady
You're spot on about the positive changes in the new guidelines - which is why it's so important that we do respond where possible. For too long parental voices have been silenced in all this - completely disregarding the principle of partnership with parents that runs through safeguarding practice since the Children Act. All to the detriment of vulnerable children.

Schools don't need to coerce the parents into anything, the parents can just google respected UK institutions and read and follow their advice. Or even just watch TV.

They don't need to, agreed. But they are doing. Child protection (Working Together to Safeguard Children) sits under the DfE, so schools become the main authority on all of this as they are the part that every parent interacts with. Some parents, like me, also get reported to Children's Services. When you're on the receiving end of coercive, implicit instruction that the only way to be kind is to affirm a child's identity, IMO it carries far more weight than looking up information from other respected institutions. I'm guessing your school isn't doing this, which is great. But unfortunately plenty are. The example wording I gave above about "take it one step at a time" was exactly what I was told. Thankfully, by the time this was said to me (by Children's Services) I had already done plenty of research. Equally thankfully, the lady I spoke to was open to a conversation about why that advice was unhelpful, despite (as she had previously told me with pride) her having lots of experience in this area where she had helped children to take it slowly etc.

Incidentally, did you ever think that you might be doing the wrong thing, given that everything is geared up to point your kid in the trans direction? (Genuine question, no need to answer).

Thankfully I never had to face this question. But it's a great one to ask. My starting position was entirely neutral: "my daughter might end up being my son one day, but equally might not. I need to find out more about this and whether her autism and lack of emotional maturity is a factor". So I went digging everywhere. I washe wanted to look at as many different viewpoints as possible. Even at the point when I had finally agreed with CAMHS that it was safe for my daughter to access their services (I've posted my article about this experience a few times on other threads, so won't derail), I remember having an explicit question being asked: if your daughter comes out of this exploration and wants to transition, how would you feel? At that time (early 2023) I said (and genuinely meant) that as long as everything she explored had been fully neutral and the impact of her autism-related puberty distress had been accounted for, I would accept this. To some degree I still would but I would go through grief (at the loss of my daughter's future health and risk to her mental well-being) and she and I would have to navigate a relationship where she understood I would never use "he" pronouns and would never accept that she was my son. She already knows my position on pronouns (I avoid them entirely in such situations), so we'd be part of the way there. But I'm doing everything I can to make sure that this situation doesn't happen. The key to that is safeguarding. And the key to safeguarding is the KCSIE, followed by parts of its improvements (🤞🤞) being uplifted into Working Together so they they can be flowed down as appropriate into the policies of all other public institutions.

Bringing it all back round to this thread, my experience with the school (and to an extent Children's Services) is a good example, of which I imagine there are many, of why it's so important to close as many loopholes as possible. My original hypothesis was that the school wanted to do the right thing but was ignorant... however, right from the start I approached it in a way that validated this hypothesis at every stage. Over time it became more likely that this wasn't driven by ignorance, so I asked an explicit question (following KCSIE 2024 guidance going live that September) to draw this out.... And sure enough they doubled down on me from there. Anyway, here we are and it finally looks like the DfE is at least trying to sort this out. The 2026 guidance isn't perfect but it's still heading in a good direction. Even if it got published without a single word being changed, we'd be in a better place than we are now, partly because of everything else that's changing. Schools like my daughters' one are going to find themselves increasingly isolated if they don't reverse ferret at some point. To say that I'm angry at the school is an understatement, but I'm channelling that into doing something about it in a way that's bigger than them. Frankly the Head and DSL can fuck off, while they gradually recognise that their previously unchecked behaviour is being seen and isn't being tolerated. Hopefully they'll get a reckoning but I can't make that my primary motivation. My motivation is my daughter and the thousands like her (and the autistic boys) who are caught up in this shite.

I should also add that I agree toilets and behaviour in schools is problematical. There’s a lot of balancing for everyone’s needs. As I have said before, any design changes to what was the norm should have been assessed as they are such vulnerable places for safeguarding.

Yes the situation for many schools is a nightmare (see article) and I think this is why the government is stalling (excuse the pun) because the financial cost to put it right to businesses (including schools) is not a vote winner. It’s not fair that schools are in this situation - they were following guidelines. It’s also not fair that designs weren’t properly risk assessed - it was a bit mad we have got to this situation where children have been harmed. It’s one thing being a business venue and not following building regulations but schools were being signed off using the Department of Education templates. I am interested in their solutions.
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ehrc-guidance-causes-trans-toilet-trouble-for-schools/

Thanks @Keeptoiletssafe, I think my problem is that I just don’t understand what that means! My school has some sinks open to the corridors and I know other schools do too and if it’s not compliant, maybe they don’t understand the rules either.

Sinks in the individual rooms is also a bloody nightmare but I think we had that discussion before. There’s no single good solution to the problem of school toilets.

@noblegiraffe

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/design-standards-employers-requirements

Right, ploughed through these for you (and me) to get the new relevant toilet sections. I have had a busy day so the pattern book with its pretty boxes is a bit too abstract for me but, as a maths teacher, you may like them - it looks like corridors to the toilet ‘suites’ are involved. It’s worth noting that toilet facilities you mentioned probably includes the sink. In general terms used by the HSE ‘sanitary conveniences’ is the toilet, ‘sanitary facilities’ includes the sink. I can’t find a definition of toilet facilities. AI reckons it includes the sink in a washroom. All of this, I believe, is still guidance though it’s interesting that building standard bs6465 has made an appearance. I always think the ‘requirements’ title sounds like it’s statutory.

These bits are relevant I think:

5.1.24 Sanitary product dispensing machines
• Extent: Minimum one machine per female toilet suite, or as specified in the Project Brief, for use from and including KS2 onwards (may be supplied by a service provider to School/College)
• Location: In common areas used only by females, not in an individual cubicle/room and not visible from circulation areas
• Mounting height (to underside): 850-1000mm
5.1.25 Sanitary product disposal bins
• Extent: One for every female toilet cubicle or universal toilet room, or as specified in the Project Brief, for use from and including KS2 onwards (may be supplied by a service provider to School/College)
• Location: On the floor adjacent to the toilet pan

3.22 Personal care (PCS)
Table of toilets ratios for pupils and students
Note: In male toilets, for Post 16 only (including FE/colleges),
urinals can be provided with the following ratio: 1.5 urinals for every WC pan replaced. Where selected, at least 40% of facilities shall be provided as WC pans.
In schools, in separate toilets for boys and girls, at least one toilet is provided in accommodation for use by ambulant disabled pupils.
In schools, in separate toilets for boys and girls, where there are four or more toilets, one of these is an enlarged toilet for use by pupils who need extra space, in addition to any other provision.
*On each floor of any school block there shall be a standalone toilet facility provided in a room that can be secured from the inside and is intended for use by one pupil at a time.
Where there are four or more toilet rooms in a cluster, one of these is to be enlarged for use by pupils who need extra space. In each group of toilets for Reception and Nursery pupils there shall be one wider cubicle to allow staff to give assistance.

my note: this used to be called gender neutral but is not anymore.

Glossary

Cubicle - A ventilated compartment, not self-contained, usually formed by the assembly of partition panels and located within a room.

Suite(s) - Collection(s) of Spaces and Clusters that need proximity or close relationship to function, for example, administration spaces, dining and kitchens, Primary classrooms and activity rooms.

This is taken from:
Pattern Book: 3.7 Primary classrooms; 3.22 Personal care
Technical Manual: 2.7 Internal walls and partitions; 2.8 Internal doors and glazed screens; 5.1 Sanitaryware and ancillaries

Those are really good questions. That's what I was referring to above when I said this has deskilled teachers. Safeguarding leads, pastoral leads are used to evaluating what's been disclosed about a child and working out whether this is a safeguarding issue? a mental health? family crisis etc and where necessary speaking to the professional network. What do we know? Does this cross a threshold? Is this child being abused? Is so what..?

But this has been presented to schools by adults pushing their ideology in a framework of #nodebate. This 6 year old is trans if he says he is. Affirm or else.

It should never have happened and the damage to vulnerable children is immense. But now we've got to unravel all this and reinstate safeguarding for all children.

Thanks, that is reassuring. So I guess we can approve those bits.😀

The draft guidance separates them out.

Gay kids might be bullied for being gay. Trans kids may have complex mental health issues.

If a kid says that they're trans, there's probably a lot going on there.

It doesn't explicitly say that a kid saying they're trans is probably a symptom of other stuff, but it basically is.

Maybe this is a derail but I find it tricky to nail down exactly where the safeguarding issues are. Are they different for sexual orientation and gender identity.

Is it a safeguarding issue if a teenager says he's gay - I guess not? So is it a safeguarding issue if a child says he says he is trans? That in itself sounds more like a mental health issue than saying he's gay does. It's potentially a dysphoria whereas gay is a normal variation.

It's presumably a safeguarding issue if a teenage boy says he's having gay sex (or any sex really)? And is there a safeguarding issue when a boy wears a skirt to school (just gender non-conforming? or is that social transition?) Or wants to change his name and pronouns (social transition and affects everyone else)? Or when a girl wears a binder (physical health issue, maybe self-harm)?

Sorry if this is a derail. But safeguarding seems like one of the areas where conflating "LGB" and "T" really causes a problem.

Schools don't need to coerce the parents into anything, the parents can just google respected UK institutions and read and follow their advice. Or even just watch TV.

Incidentally, did you ever think that you might be doing the wrong thing, given that everything is geared up to point your kid in the trans direction? (Genuine question, no need to answer).

Incidentally, the new KCSIE guidance says that children who 'confide' in a staff member that they think they're trans don't have to be reported to parents, despite the safeguarding implications. The contacting parents bit only kicks in if the child asks the school to socially transition them.

Yes, this is a MAJOR issue. It's mentioned already in the thread (by me and others) but it's so bad that it's worth saying it again. It's a TRA's dream: get the child to the point where social transition is a done deal, and then coerce the parents to agree whilst informing them <Lots of sympathetic noises, it's difficult, let's take this one step at a time, you're doing the right thing supporting their identity, so many other parents aren't as supportive as you etc etc>

I'd hazard a guess that there are many parents flailing around in the dark with this stuff, just as schools have been. So if a parent is told by their child that they think they're trans, the parent might google for advice and find the NSPCC website which says 'immediately socially transition your child by using their preferred name and pronouns and ask the child if they want the parent to ask the school to do this too'.

Parents are being groomed too, tbh, into instantly affirming and letting the child take the lead.

Incidentally, the new KCSIE guidance says that children who 'confide' in a staff member that they think they're trans don't have to be reported to parents, despite the safeguarding implications. The contacting parents bit only kicks in if the child asks the school to socially transition them.

Transactivism started from a position of "no debate" and that's been catastrophic in de skilling adults who in other circumstances understand the challenges and complexities of keeping children with eating disorders, self harm, suicidal ideation etc safe. In relation to this vulnerable cohort too many schools have adopted "affirm at all costs" and are now having to scrabble to unpick how to manage this.

This ⬆️⬆️⬆️

Edited to add:

Far too many have lost the ability to spot what is harmful and what is not. Everything has been turned on its head in that respect, with non-affirming (or in my case neutrality-advocating**) parents of genuinely distressed children managed as if they are harming those children.

** my daughter never actively identified as a boy, she just wasn't sure she was a girl. She needed all supporting agencies and the school to keep her firmly rooted in reality while also allowing her to explore her feelings and confusion.

Even Axel Rudakabana didn't qualify for Prevent intervention because he wanted to kill people but not in an ideological way.

It was a Prevent-style approach I was alluding to, re dealing with radicalisation. But you're right that it wouldn't catch everyone.

but the main source of grooming into transgender ideology isn't parents.

Sadly in some cases they are the main source. However, even if they aren't the original source, they have a unique role in grooming enablement (even if it's completely unintended and comes from a Be Kind not nefarious place) because it's the parents approval of social transition that unlocks the door for schools to socially transition a child. Instead of raising a flag (as any other form of parent-sponsored radicalisation into a belief that can lead to harm would hopefully do), it becomes a way for the school to pass over its liability. Yes, parental responsibility should top trump state involvement, but not if that parent is leading a vulnerable child towards harm. So it all depends what is meant by a "main source of grooming". It's certainly the most powerful part of the grooming engine when it comes to impact on a vulnerable child. Hopefully this post fits within MN guidelines. To add clarity (and maybe raise the chance that it does 🤞🤞) I'm referring to grooming in the sense of grooming into a belief system, where that belief system urges believers to irreversibly modifiy their bodies to match a declared belief in a gender identity (where this supposed "gender identity" differs from the person's sex).

It is thorough. It exemplifies the whole problem with this. That organisations and individuals have confidently issued made up policy and demands to schools based on their niche political ideology and that's led some schools to overreach in ways we would never do with other aspects of safeguarding. Anyone involved in safeguarding knows that certain incidents or issues can result in endless discussions of thresholds, the law, intent between professionals.

Transactivism started from a position of "no debate" and that's been catastrophic in de skilling adults who in other circumstances understand the challenges and complexities of keeping children with eating disorders, self harm, suicidal ideation etc safe. In relation to this vulnerable cohort too many schools have adopted "affirm at all costs" and are now having to scrabble to unpick how to manage this.

The Policy Exchange report is good on the ways that Gender Reassignment under EqAct2010 doesn't apply to children in schools. It doesn't mean that children don't legally have that protected characteristic, just that the EqAct2010 doesn't give them the rights that some schools and local authorities imagine. For example one school said that "in line with the EqAct2010" they should not tell parents about a child being trans without the child's consent. But the EqAct2010 doesn't say this. Another school claimed it would be a breach of Data Protection but it's not because child safeguarding trumps a lot of other legislation.

The report may be wrong about these legalities but it seems pretty thorough.