Schools Guidance Consultation closes 12 of March - can we collate ideas for responding?

[ValancyRedfern]

Hi All,

I'm concerned people (including myself!) may lost track of time and forget to respond to the schools guidance. I thought it would be useful to create a thread collating and discussing ideas for responding. I know there are still some response guides to come from SSA and Sex Matters. I'm posting in a rush right now but I will be back with any links I can find. This is so important as all the Usual Suspects will be responding, and many Unions, charities, MATs and individual schools are currently saying this is only draft guidance so can and should be ignored. We need to ensure our voices are heard.

Link to consultation:

https://consult.education.gov.uk/equalities-political-impartiality-anti-bullying-team/gender-questioning-children-proposed-guidance/

Link to draft guidance:

https://consult.education.gov.uk/equalities-political-impartiality-anti-bullying-team/gender-questioning-children-proposed-guidance/supporting_documents/Gender%20Questioning%20Children%20%20nonstatutory%20guidance.pdf

Isn't there a glaring omission in the guidance in the form of lying to a child about their teacher's sex?

The only issue there is if the teacher has transitioned, has a grc and so is covered by the EA2010. However, I don't believe there is a specific law about pronouns?

Even then, I think a child needs to know whether a teacher is a man (born male) or a woman (born female). Regardless of any special certificate that individual may hold.

As Safe School Alliance have said, if there are laws in place that prevent the proper safeguarding of children then those laws need to change.

Completely agree. None of this should have happened in schools and it's good to see this being openly acknowledged:
"we will make sure that our statutory safeguarding guidance is completely aligned with this non-statutory guidance"
Good to see they're aware of how many aspects of guidance has been affected - I was a bit concerned that they'd continue avoiding the issue but it seems not.

It seems they're aware of the efforts gone on, to say "oh it's not statutory so you can ignore it". Utter rubbish.

This isn't statutory, would the unions lobby for it to be ignored? I think we should be told.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-out-of-school-settings-code-of-practice

"This guidance covers advice on what policies and procedures providers should have in place for:
• health and safety
• safeguarding and child protection
• staff suitability
• governance
It covers out-of-school settings such as:
• community activities - for example, youth clubs
• before- and after-school clubs
• holiday clubs
• supplementary schools - for example, language, cultural and religious
• private tuition
• music lessons
• sports training"

Slightly off topic, but bear with me... Insurance.

One for people who work in schools or are involved in school governance (or know anything about insurance!).

If a school were to ignore the (non-statutory) guidance and something bad happened as a result, eg a female child was injured in the rugby game she'd been allowed to play with the boys, or an underage girl became pregnant following a school trip with mixed sex bedrooms, how does that affect the school's insurance?

Presumably insurance is conditional on the school having policies, following them, conducting risk assessments etc. How would insurers respond to a situation like this? Surely ignoring the official guidance (as well as all common sense) would give them a good reason to say 'Not covering that'

I don't think it is off topic. It's worth raising. Another aspect would be taking a female child on a school trip but the school has that child down under another name at school. Is the permission from the parents null and void?

Presumably you cannot claim on insurance, or claim to be insured, if your records are wrong. That's what insurance companies do: crawl all over records and the audit trail, looking for reasons not to pay out.

Think you're right.
A school that deliberately ignores guidance is putting themselves legally in a very dodgy position. Government non statutory guidance is meant to be followed. If a school fails to do this, then when challenged, they must demonstrate that whatever they're doing is equally "good" and legally sound The draft guidance is based on education law, (safeguarding, statutory guidance, statutory requirements etc).
Although the trans activists claim that it's all illegal, I wouldn't want to be a Head who ignores it and socially transitions a child in secret from their parents - that's against the law of the land. A Head who ignores the guidance that the children must not not undress, shower, sleep in front of the opposite sex would be unlikely to survive challenge if a child was sexually assaulted as a result. And so on.
My guess is that no insurance company would financially bail out a school who ignored guidance. And you wouldn't want to be a governor in that school, ending up responsible for a massive financial claim by a sexually assaulted child, a girl injured by a boy in a sporting event etc.

I very much agree about the cruelty to victims of male child abuse. Another group on whom pronoun use has a disproportionate impact are children with SEN. Children who have learning difficulties, such as difficulties with memory, processing, brain fog etc. can struggle to remember the "correct" pronouns. Some autistic children might struggle too. This can cause anxiety for these children. So there is another conflict of rights. Why should chilldren who are gender questioning be prioritised over children with SEN?

Another aspect to insurance is: when (not if) an ex-pupil sues where that person was a minor and was funnelled through to GIDS from the school, the school may well be liable to pay compensation. Will they be able to?

One day there will be an inquiry into all this. If the government is now doing the right thing, my guess is that schools will be on their own, whichever political party is in Westminster.

If schools, like the government, take steps to recognise the best evidence we now have and to adapt, I'm sure that'll help stem a flow of compensation applications.

Sounds harsh but the only things that all these kinds of organisations understand is financial risk.

Placemarking for a proper read through and contribution when I get time.

I saw the Transgender Trend response on email the other day. Wow. I sent it on to my daughters' school so that they could see it, in the context of the discussions that I've been having with them about all of this.

I had covered many of the points in my own response (which I've already sent) but suffice to say, the TT version was another level. The clarity with which it's written is just as valuable as the content. Stephanie Davies-Arai has a background in communications and this really shines through in the response.

Bumping the thread. 2 weeks left to complete your response.

The Transgender Trend response gives fantastic inspiration but there is a short and simple option described here https://sex-matters.org/take-action/comment-on-the-schools-guidance/

Three videos by Isla Mac with some interesting thoughts on the guidance. I watched them comfortably at 1.25 speed. She makes good points of things to keep in mind when replying.

Thanks for all this info. Transgender Trend response here: https://www.transgendertrend.com/gender-questioning-children-consultation-response/#:~:text=Schools%20must%20provide%20an%20optimal,causing%20confusion%20for%20other%20children.

Have completed. As a parent, teacher and pastoral lead

Bayswater Support Group have done a useful thread on X too:

Bayswater Support on X: "There is much to be welcomed in the @educationgov guidance, particularly the clarity around existing legal duties. However, there are key areas that require strengthening. This thread offers a summary & we urge people to respond to the consultation t.co/iRpS1Jvvuy" / X (twitter.com)

There is much to be welcomed in the @educationgov guidance, particularly the clarity around existing legal duties. However, there are key areas that require strengthening. This thread offers a summary & we urge people to respond to the consultation.

Firstly, the guidance must explicitly reference the very serious psychological & physical risks associated with a trans-identity. Otherwise schools will continue to respond simply to the superficial identity rather than considering underlying causes & consequences.

A safeguarding assessment must be mandated for any student who requests social transition or who exhibits signs of distress relating to questions about gender. This assessment should consider the following (with appropriate action being taken accordingly):

1. Potential background factors: (undiagnosed) autism/ADHD, trauma, CSA, online sexual grooming, bullying, homophobia, social isolation, gender non-conformity, normal physical changes during puberty, gender identity content in PSHE curriculum/LGBT+ school clubs.

2. Risks to trans-identified students: breast binding, genital tucking, sourcing black market drugs, exposure to inappropriate online content, family relationship breakdown (often encouraged by peers/online), unaddressed MH conditions such as psychosis, cutting and anorexia.

3. ‘Watchful waiting’ is a therapeutic concept and, as such, an inappropriate term for this guidance as this is beyond the remit of education professionals. Children who are questioning their gender require ACTIVE safeguarding to explore serious comorbidities & associated risks.

Similarly, the guidance is insufficiently clear on the difference between a request for a nickname / other name change and a request for a new name associated with a trans identity. The latter comes with all the safeguarding risks & co-morbidities already highlighted.

Teachers need an understanding of the Cass Review findings to empower them to respond appropriately to students raising questions about gender. The NHS MindEd training for education professionals should be referenced directly in the guidance.

An explicit warning is required about ideological materials from lobby groups. DfE should work with the Department for Health to make resources available to schools to ensure they take evidence-led decisions & do not undermine the NHS's guidance for paediatric gender services.

More broadly on social transition, it is thought that concerns over unmanageable pressure on the NHS prevented inclusion of a requirement for prior clinical approval. However, a lack of resources in the health service does not justify transferring this responsibility to schools. Yet that is precisely what is done by means of a loophole in the guidance permitting social transition in 'exceptional cases', with no explanation as to how a school could ever be qualified to facilitate a decision with "significant effects on […] psychological functioning".

At the very least, a reminder is required in the guidance of the statutory duty in Keeping Children Safe in Education that: “only appropriately trained professionals should attempt to make a diagnosis of a mental health problem”.

Moreover, since schools often fail to appreciate that social transition is a clinically consequential decision, they need a much stronger reminder about psychological impacts and the fact that this is the first step on a pathway to hormonal and surgical interventions.

Please don't forget to do this. Deadline in 9 days. I'm taking a break from mock exam marking to do my response now.

Seen on twitter

If you only have 5 mins, then Sex Matters have made this suggestion:

If you can only spare five minutes, we recommend simply responding “Yes” to all the Yes/No questions except 15, 17, 23 and 30. For those, we think the guidance risks leading schools to make wrong choices, and we suggest answering “No” and making a brief comment.

Comment on the schools guidance – even if you only have five minutes - Sex Matters (sex-matters.org)

Bump. I've submitted mine now.

There are webinars and campaigns like @MsGoodenough has posted above from the other side so it's really important we get our voices heard.

Check out this website to see the scale of the opposition to the guidance:
https://tnb.org.uk/?fbclid=IwAR3CTATABG3dBnyX4VNg1-nllGgXw5vgtdzjKoOUnF8lpsi-8BKXR_aPbNw

Thank you for sharing that but meh - look at what the NSPCC, the NAS UWT etc are saying. All carefully crafted with no wailing. Measured and careful (they know what the problems are).
However, all the lobby groups are incandescent as school are a massive source of ££££ for them, along with the potential to influence children below the age of consent with some beliefs that fail to measure up to critical scrutiny.

This is the NAS UWT's say nothing response:

“It is right that there should be a thorough period for consultation to ensure that the guidance provides schools with the support they need as they navigate these important and sensitive issues. Ministers need to demonstrate that they are willing to engage in discussing these matters openly and sensitively.
“We will be considering carefully the draft guidance and hearing from teachers and headteachers on whether this guidance will provide the clarity that schools and colleges need.
“We would caution against schools seeking to pre-empt the conclusion of the Government’s consultation. It is clear that Ministers have found it difficult to issue this guidance which has been beset by countless delays.
“It is essential that this guidance contributes to ensuring that schools and colleges provide safe and inclusive learning and teaching environments for all pupils and staff.”

I’m sure the majority of teachers just want some guidance that’s easy to follow.

Easy to follow guidance would be either letting any child transition who wants to or letting no child transition. Anything in between means hard work for teachers as they need to assess, negotiate, explain.

There’s no way that the govt are going to go with the ‘let any child transition’ option. Therefore we need to have no option to transition*

*whatever transition even means given that people can’t change sex.

I’ve submitted, thanks op

Great @EasternStandard

Does anyone have a feel for how long it will take them to get the final guidance out once the consultation closes? I heard someone way it could still be 9-12 months away.

Bump. Deadline in 6 days. I'm halfway through my response planning to finish over the weekend.