DfE settles in Cornwall case

[ResisterRex]

In The Times:

Parents force review of school trans guidance

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/79e44c92-3b52-11ed-a8ae-d2d57cd0511a?shareToken=0d2f7731ea5f88a5b2a41c3ab900d401

"Ministers are to review contentious guidelines on how schools should deal with gender identity after settling a court case with parents who had been accused of being transphobic.

...

The couple have now won £22,000 in legal costs after the department relented in the face of a judicial review of its decision not to support the parents in their battle with the school.

...

The Rowes highlighted to the education department what they said was expert evidence that revealed how “trans-affirming policies” allegedly can lead to “catastrophic outcomes”. But they claimed that Whitehall officials “refused to properly assess this evidence” and rejected the Rowes’ complaint.

At the High Court in February, Lord Justice Lane granted the parents permission to bring a full judicial review of the department’s decision. But lawyers for the department have now settled the case and paid the Rowes £22,000."

This is such an important development. They're refusing to uphold these toxic guidelines and have paid compensation!

Now they need to formally withdraw them.

'A view to undertaking a public consultation...' good! Sharpen your metaphorical pencils.

I don't get the bit about not believing that a transgender person is female or male. We are all one or the other. Just not necessarily what we're claiming to be at that point in time.

For God's sake their child(ren? the piece is confusingly written) was six years old and there were two boys in the class/year claiming to be girls! What IS going on on the IoW?

they were told that one of their sons would be demonstrating “transphobic behaviour” if he showed an “inability to believe a transgender person is actually a real female or male”.

their son, and the two boys who were being transed by their parents at the time were 6

this is a good development.

As this is a Times report, it needs to be read with some caution. Let’s start with the headline. The Rowes have ‘forced’ nothing. There is an existing review in progress. The Rowes had no part in causing that to happen. Meanwhile the existing guidelines remain in place. The Rowes have received £22,000 towards legal costs - no doubt only a proportion - no compensation.

@RobinMoiraWhite don’t you have some bundles to be sorting out? Or messing up?
’As this is a Times Article’. You mean an article in a well respected newspaper? Rather than an article in the woke press?
We need to get this gender ideology out of schools.
Actually, do you think it is right these 6 year old children are being transfer by their parents and schools?
Also, do you believe a male teacher should be allowed to teach wearing huge prosthetic breast? You must have seen what is happening in Canada. If not, a quick Google will show you and I await your response which I’m sure you will be happy to give.

Difficult to know what's gone on without a full judgement. They settled, my understanding is that if a case is settled there won't be a judgement but I may well be wrong.

It makes the school guidance dead in the water i.e still there but schools will be wary. Hopefully they'll now broaden their approach instead of the current myopic affirmation model.

As we have established, I don’t do bundles.

Regrettably, the Times has ‘form’ for headlines which are ideological rather than reflecting the article. If you think I am wrong, do explain what the Rowes ‘forced’.

At last, the law suits we predicted are starting.

I'm sure schools will be watching and noting.

No child of six can be 'transphobic'. Those who would have us believe absurdities would have us stand up for the gender expression of Kayla Lemieux.

As we have established, I don’t do bundles.

Mumsnet is a large forum with many threads, not everyone will have seen you "establishing" this, Robin.

You didn't make the bundle @RobinMoiraWhite we know that. I would just say people working for me on projects sometimes mess up and I take responsibility as the leader - did you really never see the bundle before it arrived in the tribunal?

Am I the only one who hears “I don’t do bundles” like Ross saying “we were on a break!”?

Existing guidelines being perhaps Working Together which wrongly includes "gender identity" which is nowhere to be found in law? Yes. That wording can go for starters. Guidance - statutory or not - must follow the law as debated and set by our democratic procedures. Not as sneaked in Dentons-style by unaccountable lobby groups.

Does one get compensation in JR proceedings? I thought not.

Does JR look at whether the process followed was wrong or right? I thought it did. So if the DfE was so confident it had done everything right, why settle?

www.countypress.co.uk/news/19648741.isle-wight-couple-hope-sue-school-transgender-issue/

The comments on this article are very interesting. Reporting back from 2017 when the original event occurred. The comments reflect the range of views and misunderstanding around in 2021.

@RobinMoiraWhiteAs we have established, I don’t do bundles.

Are you not in charge of the content of said bundles, while not physically being the one to put them together. And do you not have to check the bundles to see all is in order.

I presume the DoE settled out of court because they can no longer justify the guidelines and accept they are wrong.

I presume the DoE settled out of court because they can no longer justify the guidelines and accept they are wrong.

That's my take on it too. There's been a lot of water under the bridge since these parents started their case in 2017, for example recently there's been Dr Cass on the dangers of social transition for young children - and guidelines that were issued way back in 2012 must be very out of date and are going to be revised. So no point in prolonging the legal battle.

On a related note, a presentation at the beginning of term on 'Preparing for Ofsted', from the School Improvement Team in a 'progressive', said that policies have to use the term sex not gender as gender isn't a protected characteristic - We were told Ofsted will pick up on this. Sex was then referred throughout the presentation.
Attention was also brought to SRE (sex and relationship education) saying sexual harassment and abuse are likely to be a focus in the safeguarding aspects. We were told they would look to see in single sex grouping was being used to ensure the differences arising for the two sexes could be explored in sex specific ways.
This is a far cry from what this LA has been putting out. It was interesting that it was presented neutrally and without any comment or judgement either way. I guess the material reality of them needing their schools to perform well led to this presentation.

It'll be interesting to see what follows in terms of what else they put out going forward. The Director of Children's Services will not want practice that will undermine a good Ofsted inspection going out.

For the record, I don't think it's good that schools are so heavily influenced by Ofsted and the fact that I see these specific changes as positive doesn't change that. I am just noting this change in focus. I recall a similar session years ago that was focusing on the T, in relation to not limiting the coverage to LGB. This was before the 'plus'. The plus has never made it in to any Ofsted sessions!

That's interesting, Appletree. Possibly it's related to their Equality Objectives? Specifically the first one:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/ofsteds-equality-objectives-2020-to-2022/ofsteds-equality-objectives-2020-to-2022

"Ofsted will give due regard to equality, diversity and inclusion during inspection and regulation and in its research and evaluation work
In making judgements, inspectors will assess whether those we inspect and/or regulate comply with their relevant duties under the Equality Act 2010...

Success criterion
Inspectors report non-compliance with the Equality Act 2010 whenever encountered."

Am I the only one who hears “I don’t do bundles” like Ross saying “we were on a break!”?

😁😁😁

now you’re not!

@RobinMoiraWhite - As we have established, I don’t do bundles.

Oh, we know 😉….

Apart from which the DfE itself issued guidelines in 2020 for teaching RSE which explicitly state that no child should be taught it’s possible to be born in the wrong body, and schools shouldn’t use teaching materials that suggest a gender non conforming boy is a girl, or vice versa.

Problem is, Dworkin, those guidelines are good but they aren't statutory. So there's a tension between those and the RSE or Working Together (or both, I do get them muddled) which are statutory and state "gender identity".