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

It's quite interesting though how much some teachers will go to bat for the 'T' whilst totally throwing any lesbian children (who perhaps don't want to be pressured into sharing spaces with/ considering male bodied children as potential romantic partners) under the bus. They're both under the LGBT in KCSIE and yet lots of arguing that we need to do x, y and z not to discriminate against the T but apparently just have at it, no one gives the tiniest consideration or even discusses whether what schools are doing constitutes discrimination against lesbian children.

And we wonder why young lesbians want to identify out of being female.

So depressing.

T needs to be re named gender questioning, over and over again for children.

Something like KSCIE couldn't address this in depth. Same as for scenarios where a child isn't being fed at home. Part 4 covers concerns or allegations.

Agree with this.

Quite. There is nothing. Especially as CAHMS, SS etc are equally as captured, affirming or at the least feel they can't talk about anything that goes against the affirmative narrative. And also very stretched.

Final Cass may help, but most safeguarding policy is based on safeguarding case reviews / public inquiries etc

This is part of KCSIE:

It goes some way to explaining why teachers have been treating this as "school is the only safe space for these kids" as it's extremely open to interpretation.

It's also given charities a platform to elaborate on what they think keeping these children safe means.

Being gay is not a risk factor in terms of the child's current or long term health.

Being "trans" (or rather, disclosing they are gender questioning and requesting an affirmative action) may be a risk factor for the long term health implications for the child. can they fully understand the life long medical implications? It can also be an indicator of other safeguarding issues; sexual assault, trauma, grooming, online influences, indicative of autism etc.

I wonder how that worked. Floor-to-ceiling doors own toilets create their own risk because if someone collapses or has a seizure inside, it's not easy to get to them. When people feel ill, they often head straight to the toilet.

They dont feel as safe as suggested. I always imagine a worst case scenario of someone forcefully pushing someone else into them and locking the door. (There may have been cctv in the corridor, I'm not sure.) The teacher showing me around was delighted with them as it "really cut down on the graffiti..."

There may have been larger blocks of loos elsewhere, but I wasn't aware of any.

Great post from safe schools alliance

x.com/safeschools_uk/status/1737472951698559354?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Always worth reminding ourselves how & why some very vulnerable children were removed from #safeguarding frameworks. A #PublicInquiry is needed into how the safeguarding frameworks themselves were infiltrated.

These clauses have stopped teachers & others working with children from recognising the unique vulnerabilities of children just discovering a same sex attraction, especially when searching for information online.

It has also prevented professional curiosity around what has preceded a child announcing an opposite sex identity & them then receiving the help & support they need.

Remind us what your expertise in this area actually is @NancyMK?

#SafeguardingFail #PolicyFail #RestoreSafeguarding #WomenEd #Edutwitter

(Nancy is quoting KCSIE that states that trans isn't a safeguarding concern.)

A local secondary school was completed 7 years ago, with mixed sex single cubicle loos (floor to ceiling, off corridors) and gender queer symbols on those doors. Which means it was planned to be like that then.
So queuing for the loo in the corridors? And 11 yr old girls expected to queue with 15 yr old or 17 yr old boys? And only one door between you sorting out your sanpro and whoever's in the queue or walking past? As a couple of extra third spaces it's a good idea. For everyone I'm not keen.

One school I visit which has a unisex loo also has regular issues with doors not properly shutting - cheap construction (because nobody has a luxury budget for school loos) plus no gap at the bottom means they drag on the floor after a few months. And with being in an absolutely disgusting state, never once seen anything like it in the girls' school.

At my children school, the toilets are on either side of the room - the children decided to make one side boys and one side girls, with open wash basins in the middle.

I dont know how these were passes by local authorities because the children obviously dont have single sex washing facilities in this set up.

We need a Public Inquiry to clean this ideological possession out of gov and mandate deradicalisation of the education sector

Yes.

And it will come.

The toilets are a good example of how ideological capture in public institutions has put children in danger. They've ONLY focused on one protected characteristic and made toilets that are better (according to a very small lobby group) for that but worse, in safety terms, for epileptic children and indeed any children who could be at risk in a locked toilet that is difficult to see into or open in an emergency. This includes a very wide range of children with disabilities and medical conditions as well as ALL children as any child can have a health crisis that comes out of the blue. Children quite often get head injuries at school - they could quite easily go to one of these toilets, become unconscious and not be missed until quite significant amounts of time has passed. Then you have the difficulty of finding where the child is whereas a quick look below the partitions in single sex toilets would take a few seconds.

They also breach - unless very carefully designed - existing law about single sex toilets for children over 8.

Yet all these institutions (and apparently some teachers) are jumping up and down about how gender questioning kids might be discriminated against and there could possibly be some legal challenge with apparently no concern whatsoever that epileptic children are being made massively unsafe by these single occupancy floor to ceiling toilets, nor that the law which exists about single sex toilets for the over 8s is merrily being broken left right and centre and the impacts this has on a wide range of students including those with the protected characteristic of religion.

Concern about discrimination and breaking of the law in schools seems extremely selective. And quite clearly there is no real concern from a whole range of institutions until recently for what is in the best interests of and maximises safeguarding and wellbeing for ALL the children in a school. Balancing needs.

It's a huge strategic safeguarding failure.

Another great post pronounsbundlebundle.
As a teacher on a number of occasions I've been on my hands and knees peering under toilet doors searching for a missing vulnerable child who's expressed suicidal / self harming thoughts, has taken an overdose or is just hiding from others in fear.

All these children matter - there should be no "sacred caste" in schools.

I can only link to a Labour Women's Declaration Twitter thread but it sounds like Bridget Phillipson (Shadow Secretary of State for Education) might have spoken positively about the guidance:

https://twitter.com/LabWomenDec/status/1737429135121674450

Maybe from this?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=_0vT9OTshXI&t

Oh same clip!

@MrsOvertonsWindow

What I find so frustrating is that - obviously - teachers balance a wide range of needs every day - every second that they're working. And yet, on this one issue alone all reason and normal practice has fled in some schools (but not all).

The 'no debate' culture is highly responsible for a lot of harm as many sensible teachers have felt (very reasonable) fear that their livelihoods would be impacted by speaking safeguarding sense.

The case of the teacher who was sacked for refusing to use wrong sex pronouns (thereby putting the needs of the majority over the minority not to mention safeguarding the child in question) is horrifying. Recommend everyone watches this.

So much for a safeguarding culture. How can ANYONE feel safe to raise a safeguarding concern if they can be prohibited from working in this way. It's abuse of process.

It's abuse of the DBS system in general - people should only be barred if a serious risk to children which not using preferred prounouns is just not - and it sounds as if a LADO referred to the DBS in part on the basis that this man was 'right wing' (which is a leap from raising a safeguarding concern - are only right wing people concerned about safeguarding?).

The capture is horrifying - it's the upside down where the safeguarding process is weaponised against those raising legitimate safeguarding concerns. All parents should be terrified.

Properly dystopian stuff. Just to be clear, this has been going on since February 2022. They've blocked him from working as a Maths teacher for almost 2 years. A job he did for 18 years.

And if everyone who's 'right wing' is banned from getting a DBS schools won't have enough teachers.

https://twitter.com/KevsTribulation/status/1732718767740711394

And just to add, the whole point of a 'safeguarding culture' and 'safeguarding is for everyone' is really meant to be that you won't suffer harm by raising a safeguarding concern even if it's entirely wrong.

Which is clearly not the case any more.

It is dystopian isn't it pronounsbundlebundle ?
I do take heart from knowing that many schools have held the line in centring children. And hope that the consultation process will enable the majority of adults who know all this is wrong to voice their views openly for the first time in years.
Teachers, parents and most importantly children are terrified of being accused of transphobia / being a bigot. This isn't going to be easy as for too long the bullies have held the power. But we finally have so many fantastic women and men speaking out with confidence that I'm optimistic others will start to follow their lead?

Yes that's the one. There's still a long way to go before I'd be prepared to trust them again, but nevertheless I thought it was a big improvement on that petulant display from Anneliese Dodds in the Commons the other week.

Do you think schools are handing out items to facilitate transition? 😲
What kind of things? Testosterone? Binders? Packers? Knives so they can maim themselves?

What does the guidance mean on p10 when it refers to "transgender males who felt pressured to come out as lesbian rather than transgender"? I'm confused. Does it mean that some people were telling trans men that they were really lesbians and not trans men? Or is it referring to trans women?

The language is slightly confusing but if you read the whole para in context it's talking about lesbians being coerced to identify as boys / men &
boys / men feeling pressured to identify as lesbians (conversion therapy)

"Is there an interaction with a child’s sexual orientation? Schools and colleges should note that the Cass Review ‘heard from young lesbians who felt pressured to identify as transgender male, and conversely transgender males who felt pressured to come out as lesbian rather than transgender’. Where a child discloses that they are also questioning or exploring their sexual orientation, schools should make clear that they are under no pressure to reach a particular outcome".

They need to get organisations like this out of schools

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/06/education-charity-tells-governors-use-correct-pronouns/

https://archive.ph/2vv5s archive link