Teacher sacked over eight-year-old's trans pronouns may have to remortgage house

[IwantToRetire]

Nottinghamshire county council has threatened to force a teacher to remortgage her house after she lost a legal dispute over using a pupil’s preferred pronouns.

The council has demanded that the teacher pays its £14,000 legal costs after her application for a judicial review was rejected by a High Court.

The teacher began a dispute with the council after the local authority-run school where she worked decided to facilitate the social transition of a girl who wanted to be treated as a boy two years ago.

The teacher said that she repeatedly raised concerns about the pupil’s welfare and followed the school’s whistleblowing procedure to raise safeguarding concerns. After bringing a claim for judicial review against the school, the teacher was sacked and is now working in a sandwich shop.

The application for a judicial review hearing was rejected on the grounds that she lacked “standing” to challenge safeguarding failures in relation to an individual child at the school, adding that the school had moved the child to a different class and she was no longer the child’s teacher. A High Court judge ordered the teacher to pay the council’s legal costs.

Teacher sacked over eight-year-old's trans pronouns may have to remortgage house (yahoo.com)

(Story from the Telegraph reproduced by Yahoo, and as they have done the Telegraph story about Shaaron Davies loosing work Sharron Davies: ‘I lost the vast majority of work the moment I put my head above the parapet’ (yahoo.com) - The Telegraph is in the process of being sold, so it may have a new owner who is less committed to publishing stories about women's sex based rights being lost, and their ability to keep jobs ... )

We wouldn't let a school who thanks to aggressive campaigning and support from some part of the media, suddently say any child taken ill will receive medical treatment based on, for instance, homeopathy.

That's a false equivalence. The equivalent for this case would be a parent sending in homeopathic pills for a child to be given during the day. Schools will not refuse to give them, as far as I'm aware. Certainly we administered pills that we knew to be pointless.

I think you’ve missed the point the PP was making.

The pp’s point was that whether or not the child would be subjected to something potentially harmful / something completely unevidenced at the parents’ request depended on which school the child was at and whether it had been subject to lobbying - a school which had been subjected to external lobbying in favour of a particular course of action would comply with the parents’ request without question (and take action against employees who didn’t comply) whereas a school which had not be subject to campaigning from an external lobby group would think twice before complying with the request and consider an alternative approach.

The homeopathy example was merely an example of something unevidenced.

The PPs point (as I understood it) was about the impact of political campaigns on schools, and consequently on children. (Political with a small ‘p’, not party political.)

Thanks LoobiJee!!

"Nottingham should go after her house" eh?

@MishyJDI Would this genuinely give you pleasure? Would you like to see a teacher homeless just because she raised concerns about a child - whether wrongly or not?