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

I replied to you before with the reasons as relates to building standards at the time. I am at work at the moment so this is a cut-and-paste which I hope answers your query.

Firstly, the 1992 legislation that is the one with clause 20 that everyone quotes doesn’t apply to schoolchildren. The Department for Education told me that educational establishments are exempt. However, it does appear to apply to staff. Thats why schools are useful to study design-wise as they have been allowed to get away with designs that would be against legislation and building standards elsewhere. It’s like a big experiment in what happens when you let everything become mixed sex. And completely private designs (well a 5mm gap) have not been risk assessed and equality impact assessments have not been done.

This is from the Department for Education:
“The department does not routinely collect or collate data regarding reports of deaths, sexual assaults and rapes where the location is 'toilet’ in school and college environments. Therefore, collating the information, you requested would entail numerous
teams and individuals in the department carrying out searches from multiple systems using multiple search terms. Any information found would then need to be assessed, categorised and collated. I have considered ways in which your request might be narrowed or limited in order to reduce the cost of complying with it. However, due to the nature and breadth of your request and the way in which information is held, I do not consider that the department would be able to provide the information you have requested without exceeding the cost limit even if you narrowed the period of time”.

The Department have implemented mixed sex private cubicles with mixed sex sink areas and do not hold risk assessments or equality impact assessments for these private cubicle designs in their department (last years FOI). I have collated examples of deaths, sexual assaults, voyeurism in school toilets and design is really important for safeguarding, which should be about prevention.

A room was (is?) not technically, in design terms, a cubicle. Cubicles are within rooms as far as the 1992 legislation goes and stands at the time. There’s now specific criteria to fulfil in any toilet refurbishment or new build to satisfy building regulations which is in ‘Document T’ for England and easily accessible compared to the BS6465 (parts 1-4) which cost ££££. The Health and Safety Executive confirmed that, for Doc T, only toilets cubicles leading out onto a single sex area can have door gaps. Have a look at Document T. If schools are following standards, that’s what document T is based on.

This is the 1992 legislation:

<strong>20.</strong>—(1) Suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences shall be provided at readily accessible places.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), sanitary conveniences shall not be suitable unless—

(a)the rooms containing them are adequately ventilated and lit;
(b)they and the rooms containing them are kept in a clean and orderly condition; and
(c)separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.

By the way, you should easily be able to get into any non-domestic toilet cubicle from the outside and because of the real risk of people collapsing against the door, there should be away of getting in by removing the door or making it swing outwards. That is in all building regulations across the UK. And in school designs. So you have defibrillators in every school and a way of getting to a child but no way of knowing they have collapsed, which is a vital first step to rescue. A door gap is also useful for the occupant to give them some warning the door is about to open because that vital safety feature is misused by men on women.

If no one knows what’s going on in toilets, how do you design the safest design? If you are to design-out crime you need to know what designs are worst. As an ex-teacher I was shocked that so many rapes are reported in school premises. Where are these happening? From various sources it’s store cupboards and toilets ie private places.

I feel sorry for schools. They have used the guidance from the Department of Education on toilet designs, which implied you could have all unisex provision until 2025, but it’s the school’s responsibility if a child comes to harm in a toilet.

Health and safety should be paramount in non-domestic design but so much time and money goes into arguing who has right of access and bodging designs to compromise.

As a teacher I'd have thought you'd be comfortable with discussions that open up subjects rather than closing them down?

As a teacher I’m quite keen on facts. People pushing back on my saying that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment can apply to children and that this is a massive problem when it comes to writing this guidance doesn’t change that fact.

Thank you for this. It's interesting to see that a number of these issues are now partially, if not completely, reflected in KCSIE and the update RSHE guidelines.

I'm not sure how much schools understand the conflict of interest implicit in signing up to diversity schemes (point 9)
It's been implicit and explicit in the guidelines on political impartiality in schools for years. Sadly too many schools have ignored them - unsurprising given that these organisations have been encouraged and funded by the DfE in the past.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/political-impartiality-in-schools/political-impartiality-in-schools

Many posts on this thread cover general issues than the specific words that will be used on any consultation form. It's important to explore issues, especially if they're contributing to safeguarding fails. As a teacher I'd have thought you'd be comfortable with discussions that open up subjects rather than closing them down?

Re Prevent @BonfireLady. I don't think there's any harm in anyone raising the issue - after all, it's not as if we need to reach a consensus for an agreed Mumsnet response 😁. The KCSIE consultation is lengthy as there are all sorts of new issues being introduced. As a teacher with many decades of experience, many of them in safeguarding in schools, it's been a pleasure to read so much of the more joined up thinking with the new proposals.

Of course this area will be far more difficult as it's an adult ideology that's been imposed on children. There's limited data, massive convoluted ideological nonsense, online influence and some very dangerous adults pushing this at children with, as pointed out earlier, the DfE & Ofsted failing at an early stage to intervene and safeguard children. But - we are where we are.

Thank you for sharing that Policy Exchange report. That was very hepful and readable! The report goes deeply into the different legal obligations that schools have, including (but not limited to) safeguarding, as well as the guidance at the time, and evidence that some schools and local authorities have policies that break their legal obligations.

Thought I'd cut and paste their list of 9 recommendations:

1. In line with mandatory safeguarding guidance and the law, parents should automatically be informed when a child discloses feelings of gender distress at school, unless there is a compelling reason for them not to be informed. Parents must be central to any further decision making regarding the handling of a child’s gender distress, including social transition or change of name.

2. No school should facilitate a child’s social transition (the medical intervention in which a child adopts the social and cultural attributes associated with the opposite sex), unless medical advice clearly endorses this as the best and most appropriate action, and unless parents have been fully involved. Where this situation arises, schools should co-operate fully with relevant external agencies within their local authority.

3. Schools should be required to publish all Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) material online, and have a clear process in place for parents to raise any concerns. Parents should be given an absolute right to see all RSHE materials their child will be taught at school. If it is not published online, it must be provided to parents on request, without any requirement for the parent to come on to the school premises. All agencies that provide materials to state-funded schools must accept that materials may be provided to parents in this way.

4. The Government must urgently commission an indepent review of the teaching of RSHE materials and approach to gender distressed children in schools, with a focus on safeguarding. The review must be independent and not carried out by the Department for Education (DfE) which has been too closely involved in the development of the current situation.

5. In line with the law and current guidance, certain activities and facilities should be single sex. This relates to toilets, changing rooms and sports of a competitive nature. There should be no exceptions to this.

6. The DfE should update Keeping Children Safe in Education to explicitly address issues relating to children with gender distress and gender dysphoria, emphasising the importance of parental involvement in a child’s life. The document’s statement that LGBT is not a safeguarding issue needs to be removed, given the additional vulnerabilities of the current cohort presenting with gender distress.

7. The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) must routinely consider schools’ approach to gender-distressed children as part of its inspection of safeguarding protocols. A school’s failure to meet the appropriate standard should be reflected in the grade Ofsted awards the school, and treated with the same seriousness as other safeguarding failures.

8. The DfE should issue guidance on what is not appropriate for schools to be teaching children in RSHE at different stages of a child’s education. Gender stereotypes must be effectively challenged in schools, without conflating beliefs about gender identity with sex. Discussion about gender-critical beliefs should be included.

9. No state-funded school should subscribe to diversity membership schemes offered by external agencies where such organisations are involved in political campaigning. In accordance with the law, subscription to such schemes constitutes a fundamental conflict of interest. This does not prevent schools from purchasing or using external resources where no conflict arises.

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

I guess a parent grooming their child into saying they want their bits chopped off might warrant a safeguarding concern, but the main source of grooming into transgender ideology isn't parents.

Would referring to Prevent in the consultation response as a potential approach here (as per my comment above) address this?

We don't need to provide the solution but signposting to it as an overall approach could be useful in this respect.

Because this is a thread about responding to a consultation on changes to KCSIE and responding to the consultation saying the law is wrong isn’t going to change anything as the guidelines have to exist within the law.

Apologies for the misinformation from me!

Thankfully it wasn't the kind that led anyone to remove body parts, so I think we're all good. But sorry you ended up wasting your time checking (again).

Just double checked and it's the 22nd April

Why are you so insistent that I shouldn't critique the law? Women have been silenced over this for bloody decades which is why we're in this mess. I'm critiquing a massive safeguarding loophole in our laws.

I'm not Stonewall, I'm not making laws. I'm aware it's the interpretation of the law and I think it's wrong.

I'm a poster on Mumsnet expressing an informed opinion. You've made your point about the sanctity of the law and of course can be as tediously repetitive as you like. But you will not silence me from pointing out the bleeding obvious. We should not have a pc of gender reassignment that can applied to babies, toddlers or children unable to give informed consent.

It's a shame there isn't a mechanism for exploring how safeguarding legislation the protected characteristic of age as applied to children intersect with this dubious adult fantasy about children that's been wedged into the law.

It shouldn't, but it does. I suspect that's what both you and noblegiraffe are saying, but from different angles.

And yes, Gillick competence is definitely being tested too. As per Amaryllis' comment. Now that my daughter is 16, I've also found myself navigating these waters when it comes to professionals speaking to me about what my daughter (apparently) needs and should have access to. I won't derail but it's been (and remains) quite the journey, in both education and healthcare. Still going in the right direction overall though.

Can you clarify exactly why you think the communal sink set-up is prohibited in the guidance please? It says a unisex toilet needs to be a completely enclosed room that opens into a public space, but it doesn’t contain the words ‘self-contained’ which would be the bit I would interpret to mean it needs a sink as well as a toilet.

Funnily enough, I sent that document to the DSL when it came out.

That was back when I was liaising with the school about what was happening nationally and how they might want to adapt their approach. I didn't tell them what to do, I just signposted where they had stuff that wasn't in line with each piece of available information as it came out. Back then, the only nationally available information from a public body was the interim Cass Report, which came out in 2022. It was very clear that social transition isn't a neutral act and what this means for children who identify as the opposite sex. Arguably this was clearer than in the final report. I was very careful sharing things like this document and only did so as an FYI, given it could be construed as being political. However, it was useful for them to see what kind of information was being discussed. Anyway, along came KCSIE 2024 and they dug their heels in and the rest... as they say.. is history... A story for another day/thread 🙃

But schools really can't get away from the need to follow a safeguarding approach on this now, no matter how hard they try. The key thing now is to successfully whack-a-mole away the loopholes that are in the current proposed wording for the 2026 guidance. My daughters' school won't be the only one that has an approach that could easily slip within them.

And my point is that Stonewall et al have come under a lot of (valid) criticism for writing their suggested guidance for schools stating the law as they would like it to be rather than the law as it actually was.

So it doesn’t matter if gender recognition shouldn’t apply to children, if the legal interpretation is that it does apply to children then that cannot be ignored or overlooked or contested when writing their guidelines because that’s essentially what Stonewall did. If the law needs changing then that cannot be tackled within these guidelines.

And the legal interpretation is clearly that it does apply to children otherwise Kemi Badenoch would have issued some extremely strict guidance when she was in charge. But she didn’t. Because she couldn’t.

In practice, the safeguarding policy in schools is meant to be prioritised over other policies. But given how fundamentally transgenderism has undermined child safeguarding, the flaws are significant.
This is 3 years old now - Policy Exchange did some significant research into how schools were operating in this area. The title "Asleep at the wheel" is very apt

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/asleep-at-the-wheel/#contents__accordion

When gender reassignment protection was originally added to the Equality Act 2010 it was not envisaged as applying to children at all, not even to 16 year olds. It was aimed at middle-aged men who were seriously considering surgery and applying for GRCs.

Since then "gender reassignment" has grown legs and run away.

Arguing that a 16 year old doesn’t know their own mind is an argument already done and decided (Gillick competence etc).

Not around gender it isn't. The decisions that can be made by or on behalf of a child even with "Gillick competence" are still contested. The ethical issues around medicalising children are currently being fought out, they caused the halt in prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and they are now causing the delay to the puberty blockers trial. 16 year olds who "know their own minds" don't get to overrule the doctors who know that teen minds change.

And the ethical issues around social transition for children or enforcing it on other children at whatever age haven't been resolved either.

What an odd response. I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing out the massive safeguarding children fail at the centre of claiming that "a child" of any age can have the pc of gender reassignment.

Tbh, I'm a bit surprised at those who earnestly restate "it's the law".
It's wrong. I suspect it goes back to the times when nobody ever thought society would be so stupid as to inflict transgenderism on vulnerable children and toddlers but the reasons for why it's there, don't make it right.

The pc of gender reassignment should NOT apply to babies, toddlers, young children or children unable to give informed consent.

No medical appointments are necessary though. A 2 year old could propose to go through the process of reassigning their gender.

Yes but you could argue that a 2 year old shouldn’t be taken seriously as they could equally claim to be a tractor or a bunny rabbit.

Arguing that a 16 year old doesn’t know their own mind is an argument already done and decided (Gillick competence etc).

It must be made clear that they mustn't adopt additional policies that undermine the KCSIE guidance.

This bit is super super important and I don't think it's included in the currently proposed KCSIE wording.

My daughters' school has several policies which undermine the current KCSIE guidance re gender identity, let alone the forthcoming proposed one. When I pointed this out to them, I was managed as the problem.... and they since doubled down with more. Although interestingly, they referred to their (terrible, dangerous) mixed-sex sports approach as a "procedure" when I questioned it. Prior to that they had called it a policy.

So, to stop this kind of weasily behaviour, the KCSIE wording should probably refer to "policies or procedures".

If a Prevent-style approach is used (see my comment above re radicalism) this would stay within the law.

Just as children are allowed to go to Mosques and pray to Allah (or churches and pray to god), if there are signs that a child who is protected by the PC of gender reassignment is being radicalised in a way that could lead to harm (e.g. being locked in to an affirmation pathway from a young age), that's not trumpeting the law.

In the case of religious radicalisation, you don't start (I assume) by trying to convince the radicalised child not to believe in Allah/god. You (I assume) look into factors relating to the radicalised behaviour e.g. plans to take action that can lead to harm. Likewise, nobody needs to tell the child they don't have a gender identity but instead can work with them to understand why they believe they do have one (that differs from their sex) and help unpick it that way. I'm not suggesting it's simple but using a Prevent model as an analogy shows how it could be lawful.

No medical appointments are necessary though. A 2 year old could propose to go through the process of reassigning their gender..

All they need to do is be able to speak and say the relevant words. "I will be a lady when I grow up" is probably enough, given there is no threshold for what this proposal needs to include or lower age limit on how or when it can be expressed.

Here's the current guidance:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/gender-reassignment-discrimination

Screenshot of relevant section below.

Thankfully the existing wording in the new proposed KCSIE guidance goes some way to addressing this but it doesn't really go far enough. If a parent insists that their primary (or younger) age child needs their social transition respecting, schools will do this... whereas actually, we need KCSIE guidance which looks more like the Prevent info, where the parent is seen in the context of a child who is being radicalised. Obviously that parent may have received really shit advice and may also have been radicalised themselves, but KCSIE should be there to protect the child from the impact of this.

Great points from Mrs O about KCSIE. Although doesn't the consultation end on 12th April, rather than the 22nd?

Oh, and you can't bully someone because you think they are or might be trans.

Keeping them out of the wrong-sex toilet or accomodation or sport is fine; but a school may alsoneed to provide a suitable individual or unisex or mixed sex alternative.

the technical guidance to schools says that the harassment provision of the Equality Act doesn't apply to gender reassignment

I don't know why harassment only applies to certain protected characteristics here and whether that's only a school thing.

IANAL but it seems like the currently published guidance is potentially wrong on this. I guess the interim guidance (which does cover schools and has proven to be lawful) provides a reasonable hint to suggest that the logical direction of travel will be that harassment can apply to gender reassignment in all situations covered by the EA as per Forstater. We won't find out any time soon though as the final guidance that Phillipson is sitting on doesn't even cover schools.... she's got a whole extra sit-in protest opportunity after her current one finishes.

It has to be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim though, I'm not sure what the legitimate aim of stopping boys wearing dresses would be?

Whatever their reason, this needs to apply to all boys (of the biological sex variety). Not just those that are covered under the PC of gender reassignment because they are proposing to undergo a process to change their gender (whatever that means... FFS). It would be interesting to know what the legitimate aim is.

Maybe schools are concerned that up skirting would be even more traumatic for everyone concerned (not just the skirt wearer) if it meant being exposed to a dangling bollock? I can't help thinking about that Alan Partridge episode where a poor distressed Lynn had to let Alan know that the boys were out of the barracks....

But, joking aside, it is difficult to imagine what legitimate reason there is for stopping a boy wearing a skirt to school. As long as he knows he's a boy, and isn't showing signs of fetishist display (perhaps that's the legitimate reason?**), surely it's difficult to justify the restriction.

**Which brings it right back round to safeguarding. Unfortunately, there will be boys who are being groomed into the world of autogynophilia. Some will want to wear a skirt to school as a direct result of this, even if they aren't consciously aware that this is what's driving their need to wear it. Sadly there are young boys (many autistic, socialising online in gaming and anime worlds, with emerging opposite-sex attraction as their sexual maturity starts to kick in) who are on this pathway. Refusing to let any boy wear a skirt because of this risk may well be legitimate. They are children, not adults, and as such are vulnerable. Maybe that particular point needs to be captured in the KCSIE?