Scottish Independent School to Support Social Transition for 12 Year Olds without Need for Parental Awareness

[rogdmum]

George Watson’s College are back in the news.

Their Principal, Melvyn Roffe, is also current Chair of HMC and last month platformed former Mermaids trustee, Bobbi Pickard, at the HMC spring conference in London.

Now draft guidance for supporting trans identified pupils has been leaked to the Telegraph with Melvyn stating he has no choice but to support social transition for pupils age 12+ whether or not their parents are aware, because it’s the law.

He claims to be “really conservative” on this:

”The draft policy states that while there was a “basic assumption” that parents “know what’s best” for their child, in “certain circumstances” children aged 12 and above had “legal capacity to make decisions in their own right”.
Mr Roffe said that the school’s position was that while parents were best at knowing what was in the interests of their children, this was “subject to the limitations of the law”.

He said that he would consult with lawyers and that the policy could be revised if it had “misunderstood the legal frameworks in Scotland”.

“I’m being positioned as this somehow woke, liberal, individual,” he said. “But I’m really conservative on this. Until someone changes the law, all I’ve got to do is apply the law.”

If you have a Telegraph subscription the comments are glorious. If not, the article is archived in the usual place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/27/george-watsons-trans-school-transition-socially-children-uk/

Ah, I see, sorry. Would the head of this school not be using the Scottish guidance?

“I cited professional opinion that schools should not be socially transitioning children without expert advice, and that it is inadvisable to do so without parental consent. But the school dismissed it all. They insisted they had not socially transitioned my daughter as they didn’t believe that calling her by a new name and using opposite sex pronouns constituted a social transition. They claimed they were putting the child’s interests first and were following safeguarding.”

They have evidently either not read or not understood what the Cass Report said.

Maybe one day schools like this can be sued for endangering pupils especially autistic ones.

It is based on the ScotGov guidance but with various different points.

Paragraph 2 of page 1says that parents have the right to make decisions about their children but must have regard to the child's wishes. How can they exercise that right if they aren't informed?

Good grief. If they pay up knowing what's coming more fool them. (That's no consolation to the poor kids though...)

IMO, It’s a wilful misinterpretation of the Age of Legal Capacity Act. The guidelines give the impression that “have regard to the views” means that the child is the decision maker and of course that isn’t what that means at all. It means the child has a right to express their views and have those views considered.

It goes on to say a child of 12 are capable of making decisions about certain matters which is true, but none of those certain matters include having a social transition supported by a school. It mentions ability to instruct a solicitor (true), It mentions consenting to their own medical treatment which is a glossing over of what that means. It gives the impression that any child 12+ gets to give consent to anything medical which is not the case. Along similar (but not exact) lines to Gillick, a medical professional still has to assess the child’s CAPACITY to consent.

And finally, it mentions the child can “enter into transactions usual for a child of that age”. Which is true, but in no shape manner or form is enacting a serious psycho-social intervention a “transaction usual for a child of that age” and it is madness to give the impression that it is. These transactions are normal every day activities like going to the shop to buy sweeties.

The previous page sets out the EHRC Technical Guidance to Schools as their basis for arguing to not support a social transition would be discriminatory. But we know (and the school actually says this) that the EHRC Technical Guidance is currently being revised as understanding has moved on and NHSE has said that these children (ie those who have just announced a trans ID and have not been assessed by GIDS etc) do NOT come under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

I could go on and on about it.

IMO, Watson’s draft guidance is legally unsound, but unless you know the ins and out of it, you would just read it and accept it at face value. How many teachers (and parents if they eventually release it) will know it can be challenged?

The comments are encouraging!

How mad is the world when some head/teachers deem it illegal to tell parents about the state of their 12 yr old mental health on the one hand whilst parents are campaigning to force universities to tell them the state of their adult children’s mental health on the other.

If parents - rightly - are worried and concerned about an 18 year olds state of mind, how on earth can it be right to ignore them about their 12/13/14 yr olds etc state of mind? Gillick competency seems just another example of a ’liberal’ or progressive step seen as an opportunity by TRAs to twist or exploit.

A good point, DrB.

Quote DrBlackbird: 'How mad is the world when some head/teachers deem it illegal to tell parents about the state of their 12 yr old mental health on the one hand whilst parents are campaigning to force universities to tell them the state of their adult children’s mental health on the other.'
If you think about it the two stances are the same, parents are being denied involvement in both situations. There is no justification for this, as even when at University, parents are expected to support financially.

Gillick if I recall correctly arose around a mother not wanting her teenage daughter to be given the contraceptive pill by NHS GPs. At least that action by a GP would prevent unwanted pregnancy and was arguably in the child's interest if they were determined to be sexually active. There is a world of difference between that and declaring 'transness' and thereby embarking on lifelong ill-health at taxpayers' expense.
Why should our taxes even fund this potential medical harm at all in the NHS?

I've dealt with the terrible fall out after a school omitted to share with parents details of their child's worry and sadness (and the outcome was as bad as it could be). It's hardwired into me that a school deliberately keeping secrets about a child's mental health problems is an arrogant, professionally dangerous act that can have catastrophic outcomes for a child.

The idea that this arrogance is fuelled by an ideology that has the removal of boundaries, factual knowledge and safeguarding baked into it, makes it even more dreadful.

It's owned by a charitable trust, like most private schools are. Enrollment numbers will neither "drop off the cliff", nor will parents withdraw their children en masse: this is Edinburgh we're talking about.

Nothing is going to happen to Melvyn. He’s like Teflon. He got through the 2017 parental complaint (upheld by the Education Minister) despite his without anyone even lifting an eyebrow:

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20171126/281646780451041

His response was appalling:

”Some constituents, who have waged a war of attrition on us in the past two years, have managed to persuade a Member of the Scottish Parliament that they should launch an attack on the school. This is an example of how a child who was having problems making friends in school ended up a pawn in a political game.”

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/education/george-watsons-headmaster-in-staunch-defence-on-alleged-bullying-597271

Anyone who say that about parents whose child suffered severe bullying and not have any backlash, can get away with just about anything, I would think.

What it does make interesting is what will happens once the English guidance comes out. If as expected, the English guidance says parents must be informed (and possibly are the decision makers as well), the independent sector up here will have to make a choice- will they abandon the reckless (to say the least) Scottish guidance? If not, how on earth will they explain to Scottish parents that their children are somehow different and schools are fine to keep social transition from them.

Will be interesting to see if Melvyn keeps pushing the idiotic “just following Scots law” claim.

It's awful, but isn't it what is happening in Scottish state schools too? I thought Nicola Sturgeon presided over affirmation only for primary school children too?

We home educate (for years before all this bullshit) so I may have missed updates about this.

Yes, it’s happening in far far too many state schools as well, thanks to the ScotGov non statutory guidance. Melvyn is unique though in coming out to say Watson’s is legally obligated to keep social transition secret from a child’s parents if the child is 12+. Even ScotGov says there’s no legal obligation for a school to do so.