What would the DfE schools' guidance and policy look like under a Labour government?

[BonfireLady]

I'm thinking ahead to a (likely inevitable) Labour government after the next election.

Obviously the DfE staff are civil servants, so are ostensibly non-partisan. However, from what I am understanding, thanks in no small part to the brilliant posters on this board, both the DfE and Labour have a high number of people who are very supportive of the notion of a "trans child".

The Tories have had a significant part to play in getting us to where we are now: notably both a) the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity in the curriculum and b) the KCSIE statutory guidance stating that sexual orientation and gender identity are not safeguarding issues happened on their watch. Thankfully, we've now got the Gender Questioning Children draft guidance, which isn't perfect as is but is a significant step forward, and we've also had phenomenal discussion in parliament about children and gender identity following the Cass Report.

There were quite a few comments on the HoC thread which focused on schools and safeguarding needing urgent attention.

One comment that was indirectly related to this topic got me thinking.... Someone mentioned that Wes Streeting used to work for Stonewall, in education.

If/when Labour do get in, do we know who or where the influences will be coming from? We have no idea how far the Tories will get in finalising the non-statutory guidance, getting schools on board with following it, getting the teaching of gender identity belief out of the curriculum, improving how safeguarding is managed in relation to gender identity belief etc etc.

I wonder if we can "brainstorm" what/who to look out for in a future Labour government?
It might help parents to understand more about what is coming, so that they can raise concerns now with schools or their MP.

@mnhq please could I change the title to:

What would the DfE schools' guidance and policy look like under a Labour government?

*[Message from MNQ - we've edited the title, as requested]

I think a huge part of the issue we have now was caused by Cameron's "big society" idea, the removal of local education authorities and devolvement of decisions on appropriate teaching materials and providers to individual trusts.

This allowed schools to start using charities for some aspects of teaching, including LGBTQ charities. I don't think all the teachers procuring the training were necessary able to join the dots on the possible dangers in the way a more centralised function would.

It also allowed people like Ruth Miskin to get extremely rich milking the schools for her phonics programme.

I don't know what Labour's policy is on this but I hope they centralise and standardise content and providers more. This will also have an added benefit of making it clear to parents who is responsible if they aren't happy with material being taught.

Worst case is a copy and paste of this:

x.com/jennifersey/status/1781309887164637204?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

x.com/jennifersey/status/1781310106786816317?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Total erasure of sex and material reality as a starting point. From there, you're basically just fucked.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/big-society-speech

This could be a factor that enabled Stonewall to get so much influence too

Posts about the Tories are a complete derail.

The OP is asking what the DfE schools' guidance and policy would look like under a Labour government.

No, they aren't .
I'm saying I hope Labour go back to a centralised model as the decentralised model allowed some of the current issues to manifest. I think they will and I think that will be better for parents and children.

Well, I do agree that education is in a mess due to what Ryan describes.

The tories have just realised that they fucked up and are currently ploughing silly money into exemplary lessons for the whole curriculum. In case of future national school lockdown but also so that there is some control over what's taught. (Oak national academy.) it's a private company but with masses of dfe funding.

Labour would be silly to shelve that actually and may well jump on that bandwagon.

However, the guidance for gender questioning children could become statutory as Cass cities some aspects that really are part of safeguarding. Certainly some key points now have enough evidence to be included in kcsie. Which is statutory. Labour would struggle to change that in the absence of other evidence.

Also, what little the Labour schools and education ministers have said about Cass has been positive.

The dfe have very stupidly released a consultation on kcsie which I feel is ridiculous; safeguarding relies on evidence rather than crowd sourcing and their opening statement is "safeguarding is one of the most important aspects of education."

No it's THE most important ffs!

(So will be using the consultation to tell them that )

New centralised curriculum

https://www.thenational.academy/lp/how-to-use-Oak-in-3-easy-steps?utmcampaign=GoogleeBrandCampaign&utmmsource=GooglePPC&utmmmedium=paidsearch&utmmcontent=responsivePPCCad&utmterm=GoogleeBrandCampaignnAdg1ExacttBrandAddhowtouseOak&matchtype=e&device=m&keyword=oak%20national%20academy&creative=617781318446&campaignid=18125298451&adgroupid=141141387595&locinteresttms=&locphysicallms=9046783&feeditemid=&adposition=&gadsource=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwz42xBhB9EiwA48pT7yA5fmx54l-E2s6BwP9y5wibBMb6mEDLxWSDnrj9eggwoLMw5v5clxoCVYYQAvD_BwE

I'm assuming Bridget Phillipson is likely to be appointed Secretary of State for Education. She seems to have managed to keep her head below the parapet on this issue but I believe she did welcome the publication of new guidance for schools a few months ago?

That's all I know but, if I were forced into making a prediction, it would be that she's likely to follow whichever way she thinks the wind is blowing.

Sorry I can't seem to get a shorter link!

You can delete everything after the question mark, and the link still works!

I think we need a public inquiry in order to keep whoever is next, on alert that the issue of regulatory capture is serious and is not magically going away because of Cass.

The safety and welfare of children has been allowed to give way to adult agendas and so many organisations that the next government will have to work with, have been a part of that. Be it actual acts or by silent complicity.

SSUK has a template letter but as always, it's better if you can give examples of where this has affected you and your children, when writing.

No idea if effective but if your MP is captured, perhaps also copy to Kemi? Or one of the peers who has seen through all this?

Peers I can think of: Baronesses Nicholson and Fox, Lord Young. I know there are others too

https://x.com/safeschoolsuk/status/1780311849902248091?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

The last Labour government had a range of interventionist policies for schools including the "National Strategy" that informed teaching about numeracy, literacy, behaviour etc. It was heavily government funded with local authorities well resourced to implement it.
When the Conservatives arrived in 2010 boasting of "freeing schools up from red tape" they literally binned everything - from the national strategies to guidance on things like exclusions. All this needed to be rewritten, much if it initially so brief as to be useless.
They then outsourced giving "advice" to schools with civil servants pouring funding into organisations like Stonewall who were then able to sell their "born in the wrong body" fantasies to children.
We know Stonewall have been cosying up to the government and it would be naive to assume that the other trans lobby groups are not doing the same.
I'm torn between being cautiously hopeful that Labour have actually read Cass and realised the dreadful harm that's been unleashed on children. But, given Starmer's previous weakness having been sucked in to the fantasy about woman with a penis, along with his lack of courage in stopping the bullying of women calling this out in the party, I have yet to be persuaded that he has the integrity to prioritise the safety of children over his tangled personal feelings / influences.
The demise of LA's influence over schools will make it much harder for Labour to exercise direct influence over schools. Sadly, given the Guardian / BBC echo chamber so many of them live in, I'm not convinced they understand that children being taught their bodies are wrong but can be fixed with a sex change is even a problem?

I do agree that the history is relevant to how we got here @AdamRyan (and implicitly stated as such in my OP) but as @Chersfrozenface says, I'm more interested in understanding what it would look like going forward, with the status quo "accepted". An inquiry can do the part that understands how we got to where we are - and I echo the calls for this.

An inquiry will take a long time to start and complete. Meanwhile, we'll likely have at least 4 years of Labour government and, on the face of it, a lot of potential for the momentum that has recently been built up on addressing the impact of gender identity belief to be replaced by actions that have a different kind of Momentum.

For clarity, I have never been a Tory voter. Until I came across this specific issue I was very happy in my Lib Dems, Guardian-reading bubble and assumed that we lived in a country that had no real domestic issues other than Boris dancing with his pals while telling everyone else not to etc etc etc. I could go on but I won't. It's fair to say, I was very anti-Tory (and grew up in what is still an anti-Tory family).

What's far more important is to understand the likely impact of a Labour government liaising with the DfE with a who's who and a what's what understanding. This will highlight the specific risks and hopefully lend a pathway to mitigating them.

It's an interesting question as a lot of the power rests with civil servants who often "mediate" between what politicians want politically and what is legally allowable? Which is why the capture of civil servants by trans extremism is such a problem. It shouldn't have happened (Nolan Principles of public life) but that's been ignored.
So now we see Tory politicians furious as the civil servants in the NHS, even frighteningly the armed forces, beclown themselves via trans ideology instead of meeting the needs of society. Until trans extremism is prised out of the civil service will much change?

There's a Labour government in charge of education in Wales, so I'd suggest that's a good reference point to start with?

Of course, as parents in Wales no longer have the right to either see RSE materials or withdraw their children from RSE lessons, it's hard to find out what's actually being taught. But you can Google things like "Welsh Government LGBT action plan".

I'm nervous that she said she welcomed its publication... but made no comment on its content.
And she came on to a MN Q&A and answered my question about what Labour would do to address this issue in education if they got in with (paraphrased) "we will start a consultation to understand the issues". I think she did actually use the word consultation and I remember with absolute certainty that she said "start" because I was annoyed by this. The Q&A was held shortly before the draft guidance came out. Some time between it being promised at Easter and coming out just before Christmas. Obviously it had already been delayed but to talk about starting it, given where it was and that a select committee was (presumably) already overseeing it, suggested that Labour would intentionally kick it along the road. Obviously Gillian Keegan hasn't exactly demonstrated a drive on this but if we have an equivalent in Bridget Phillipson, who is the equivalent Kemi Badenoch + Miriam Cates etc. And obviously sponsorship from the top (flip-floppy Keir still doesn't seem to fully understand or necessarily care about the facts of sex versus the belief of gender identity).

I'm going to assume that Stonewall will pivot to save itself and that Labour will likely attach itself to whatever the rebrand looks like.

Stonewall seems to have 2 choices:

1. Drop the TQ+++++++
2. Embrace/lead whatever new, more "palatable" version of gender identity emerges, concentrating on suppressing public knowledge of autogynophilia (as now) but without the "shield" of the "trans child".

My guess is that they'll get Labour support and a space for their activism to infiltrate the civil service, no matter which route they choose, under a Labour government. There will be a big PR exercise under whatever they do to make it all sound very progressive and fair etc.

If they choose option 1, they will have their work cut out to explain why they called LGB Alliance a "hate group" and how they differ in their focus. Also, there is far more scope in option 2 (whatever it ends up being) to keep more people in jobs, give them a purpose that aligns with all the pies they currently have their fingers in and continue getting access to influencial places.

I think SW and co, and Labour, will focus on the waiting lists as though that's the issue. It is not the issue as anyone who has read Cass will see. Doing that will provide a cover for allowing more of the TQ+ agenda in schools, or to allow it to carry on unchallenged.

And that's without what happens in the US elections and if they decide to import TQ+ wholesale.

It's outrageous.

I don't think you have the foggiest about what civil servants do. Their role is to implement the policy of the government of the day. All this Truss-esque talk about the civil service being "captured" by trans activists is nonsense.

Of course its a necessary protection that Civil Servants shouldn't be asked to break the law, and should be able to refuse if they are asked to break the law. Can't believe anyone would advocate otherwise. Noone should be above the law.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/22/parents-wales-lose-legal-fight-gender-sexuality-tuition-primary-schools

Mrs Justice Steyn rejected the legal challenge after a two-day hearing in Cardiff, concluding: “There is nothing in the code or the guidance that authorises or positively approves teaching that advocates or promotes any particular identity or sexual lifestyle over another, or that encourages children to self-identify in a particular way.”

She said the RSE curriculum aimed to “encourage tolerance between human beings irrespective of their sexual orientation and identity, and to enable children to deal critically with influences from society, so that they develop into responsible and emancipated citizens capable of participating in the democratic processes of a pluralistic society”. She said its introduction had been “the product of a process of careful consideration”.

I am growing increasingly alarmed that Cass/TQ is being used to target LGB awareness and take us back to section 28 days. I was at school in section 28, I know how that affected my gay friends and colleagues (most of whom didn't come out until after school). I can contrast that with how my own children and their friends are about people being gay.

Teaching children to respect other identities is a good thing. Carefully designed, thoughtful material created and administered centrally is exactly whats needed.

You need to report your post and ask in the report. They likely won't see your request on the thread.

😂
Think I'll go with the courageous civil servants in the SEEN network rather than your frothing post Adam.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5020958-trans-rights-activists-in-civil-service-undermine-policies

Had you read my post you would see that I was talking about civil servants being the experts in the law in their area and advising politicians on what was allowed. Nothing about them being asked to break the law.

I'm cautiously hopeful that Cass will have a positive impact on schools in terms of finally allowing parents and staff who until now have felt too intimidated to challenge political bias and the influence of trans activism. We've finally seen open coverage in the media - including journalists at the BBC and Guardian - and I'm optimistic that the evidence in Cass will allow greater scrutiny.

I also noticed this intervention from Professor Alexis Jay who chaired the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales and spoke about the similarities she identified with the Rotherham enquiry into the grooming of girls. She's pointed out the similarities with the:
" issues of toxic debate and fear of professionals to speak up that let children down in Rotherham that also run through the findings in the Cass Review".

"Nothing should be done except in the child's best interests and welfare".

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,scot-who-led-rotherham-inquiry-warns-of-parallels-with-cass-review