School Guidance out Tomorrow

[Igneococcus]

I don't have time to read this fully right now, but it sounds messy:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/789e1fd3-4a82-4b71-a0bf-e165b5f410b1?shareToken=054150e42690555c0ffe751a53776e92

Not experts in safeguard in schools.

The advice about treating children as if they were the opposite sex should have sounded safeguarding alarms within schools.

Not legal experts, not child experts, not medical experts. A lobby group with the right political associations that teachers could feel good about. No wonder they found it easy to fill the vacuum with their grift.

So rather than wait, they ignored all their safeguarding training and transitioned children without parental permission, allowed boys to use girls changing room, and withheld details of the trans ideology they taught from parents?

Public inquiry needed.

All this has happened outside safeguarding practices. Not just schools, GIDs too, charities, dfe etc. Children were experimented on and are continuing to be so. Nothing was evidence based.

This document is parent centred and throws the duty of care back to them. Highlights that it's a belief. Allows teachers to discuss the beliefs. But that's still not about how we safeguard the children and why.

I can't remember if it mentions the desistance rate? 80%. Probably higher now as many children don't make it to GIDs before desistance. If not it should. Cass is needed urgently.

In the meantime, it's not KCSIE, which is where the changes need to be made.

At least it's draft as clearly there's a lot of working out to be done. I think unfortunately it's going to take years of re evaluating it and changing it.

The leak to Schools Week is bizarre. Im minded to be sceptical of that. I think @LoobiJee breaks it down well. Some lawyers can be into detail plus it is out to consultation.

Also it fails to mention that there are currently legal challenges from parents against schools / dfe for the harm caused by affirmative models.

It's such a mess and will continue till be so. Throwing decisions back to parents means that schools aren't acting in parentis independently anymore.

For those cases where schools and parents have affirmed, they're likely to have to continue to be, bar single sex spaces.

Thanks for this detailed distinction. I follow it pretty much, I think

An important safeguard for dc is the ability to segregate by sex even if the law does not change.

Plus imo most people are reasonable, not TRAs, and they will follow this guidance without looking for legal challenge.

It also gives a solid foundation for patents to raise any non guidance issues with a school

I'm intrigued to read that the guidance was signed off by Kemi Badenoch and not Gillian Keegan, the Minister for Education. Has that been explained somewhere (apologies if it has and I've missed it) because it sounds highly unusual, surely?

"Schools must not allow a child, aged 11 years or older, to change or wash in front of a child of the opposite sex, nor should they be subject to a child of the opposite sex changing or washing in front of them".

I’d question the motivation of any adult who wants to challenge this.

On the DFE website, the statement covering the guidance has quotes from Gillian Keegan, Kemi Badenoch and Ofsted. So it appears to be DFE guidance (Secretary of State for Education guidance) that is covered by a joint GK/KB statement / press notice.

It’s the Schools Week article which talks about the guidance being signed off by KB and No 10 but fails to acknowledge that it would have / should have been signed off by GK too. That could simply be an oversight on their part. Or it could be them hinting at behind the scenes disagreement.

There’s no way of knowing whether GK did / didn’t sign off the guidance. She should have done. So either she did but Schools Week aren’t acknowledging that, or she didn’t and No 10 did so instead of her but Schools Week have been briefed to not spell that out explicitly. That’s why I said it makes you wonder who provided the leak to Schools Week. Of course another - even simpler - possibility is that the explanation is sloppy writing by Schools Week.

I'm guessing two things: 1. they didn't agree. (V Possible as the dfe is captured.)

1. It's whether this is coming out mainly from an "equalities" and legal perspective or educational perspective.

It's clear that there are conflicts between effective child safeguarding and the current equalities law. Which is linked to queer theory in all honesty. I'm no lawyer but framing it within the latter is better for this particular situation.

Note that public sector guidance was also issued recently pointing out there's no heirachy of rights and they're not to use the term gender identity.

I also suspect this is why it's not made it to KCSIE; both the dfe and KCSIE are woefully inadequate on this issue, partly because universities, where research bases are generated, are also horrific on this area.

Third option is that this is the hill Kemi was willing to die on. And she's taken it all the way. Except she's clearly thriving.

Ah cross post. Thanks @LoobiJee

Yes, schools week could be dodgy news....

Also it was clear the dfe were never going to bring out any guidance without other departments being involved.

Thanks all, I also watched some news coverage last night on Channel 4 (I think) which included a clip of Kemi Badenoch talking about it rather than Keegan. I thought at the time that it was strange.

My take on it - just a punt but I don't think it's an extreme one - is that the Tory party are as divided over this as Labour are. Tory MPs might, on the whole, be less prone to outbursts in the Commons or grandstanding on Twitter but I suspect a massive hullaballoo behind the scenes.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/50b1ce10-aa0a-4162-8c30-ec30f3c33445?shareToken=4fede63c315992a9dbab3c6ec49f7555

Remember Stonewall's lack of interest in safeguarding when they openly appointed Aimee Challenor to their trans advisory group despite knowledge of their involvement in the shocking paedophile scandal in the Green Party? Any school making that appointment would have been investigated by the police / Ofsted but organisations working with schools seem to get a free pass (also see Mermaids).

I'm not sure joint documents are unusual. Not the norm but they're not unusual. Wasn't the rape response a joint one?

But I imagine Keegan wouldn't be your first choice to defend a policy. Especially after that clip of her laughing on the hot mic. Giving the media an excuse to re-run that would take away from the message as then it becomes "times Keegan reminded us she's not up to the job" or whatever kind of headline.

You'd put Kemi up. She knows it like the back of her hand.

This.
Keegan's knowledge of this issue has been woeful. Although to be fair, we all know how difficult it is to explain clearly the main issues without sounding incoherent and Kemi's incisive grasp is a joy to listen to. Not sure that Keegan has got past "be kind".

Keegan signed it off with Badenoch, both their signatures are on page 4.

The problem, as has been said on here, is that once an entitlement to access opposite sex spaces has been awarded to adult males with a GRC, there’s no practical mechanism for stopping adult males with the PC of GR but without a GRC from accessing that entitlement, nor of stopping adult males without the PC of GR from doing so either.

The GRC is a red herring tbh. You don't need a GRC to access single sex spaces - look at all those men in women's prisons and on hospital wards who don't have one. You can change your sex on your driver's licence or passport without one. And trans people with a GRC can be excluded from single sex spaces so long as it is proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

But the basic assumption is that single sex services should be open to trans people with or without a GRC unless an exemption is asserted.

The guidance is clear, GRC or not for adults is irrelevant

"Schools must not allow a child, aged 11 years or older, to change or wash in front of a child of the opposite sex, nor should they be subject to a child of the opposite sex changing or washing in front of them".

Thanks again to everyone who's clarified. Still finding Keegan's reticence about it a bit bizarre but, if it is significant, I'm sure all will become clear.

But the basic assumption is that single sex services should be open to trans people with or withouta GRC unless an exemption is asserted.

Isnt having single sex services asserting the exemption?

If separate sex facilities arent justified, how would they be legal?

I dont know, im genuinely asking.

If that's all "signing off" means, then schools week are peddling some strange news.

But the basic assumption is that single sex services should be open to trans people with or withouta GRC unless an exemption is asserted.

Whose assumption? Stonewall's?

The Equality and Human Rights Commission.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60983982