“Outing” and “Transphobia”: Informing a parent that her child was being “socially transitioned” by a school/college

[Steve3742]

So, I’m having a problem with my employer.

I am—or was—a Learning Support Assistant at Nottingham College, and have worked for them nearly continuously since 2006.

Last September, I was informed that a vulnerable 16-year-old autistic girl was to be socially transitioned within the college, adopting a male name and “he/him” pronouns. I was also informed that her mother had not been consulted and that this information was to be deliberately kept from her. After unsuccessfully raising my concerns with Safeguarding that withholding important information about her daughter’s health and well-being was a risk for the child, I decided to inform the mother about what was happening. As a result, I was fired.

The college’s decision to hide the social transition of a vulnerable 16-year-old girl from her mother was unlawful and violates both the Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSiE) statutory guidance and the Department for Education’s Guidance on Gender-Questioning Children. Both frameworks are informed by the evidence presented in the Cass Review, which emphasises that social transition is not a neutral act and can be harmful to a child’s welfare, particularly for vulnerable individuals.

Paragraph 208 in KCSiE states that supporting a gender questioning child “should be in partnership with the child’s parents” and clinical advice should be sought.

By engaging in this deception, the college directly breached safeguarding principles. Any collaboration between adult staff and a vulnerable child to withhold information from their parents is a clear violation of fundamental safeguarding standards. My referral to safeguarding referenced all these points but wasn’t acted upon. I raised these concerns multiple times during the disciplinary process, yet they were repeatedly dismissed.

I’m taking the college to a Tribunal for false dismissal (and am gardening to help with that, check the CJ site). But one of the objections raised against me is that I “outed” the child, with all the connotations that go with that, the abuse that gay children often face from unaccepting parents.

I don’t think the two situations are comparable. For a start, the parent already knew her child was gender-questioning, so she wasn’t “outed” in that sense. She was informed, by me, about what the college was doing, not any new information about her daughter. She was told that the college was facilitating the “social transition” of her daughter and, particularly egregiously, that the college was trying to keep this information about their activities hidden from her.

All the relevant guidance, some of which is statutory, states that she had a right to know this. That she had a right to be consulted about it. Indeed, that the college had a duty to consult with her about this. One that it not only failed in but actively tried to subvert by conspiring with a vulnerable 16 year old child to keep their activities secret from her. Conspiracies between adults and children to keep secrets from parents are a huge safeguarding red flag.

Not only this, but it can be argued that a child’s sexuality is the child’s business and, even if the college were to find out about it, they have no reason to disclose it to anyone. Even Section 28 didn’t put a duty on a school or college to inform a child’s parents that they were gay, were they to find out that they were. But the guidance quoted above does include a duty to consult with a child’s parents about their “social transition”, for good reason. “Social transition” involves the school or college making significant changes to the way it operates. Names must be changed, wrong-sex pronouns must be used by staff and students, decisions need to be taken about what punishments, if any, should be meted out to dissenters, and so on. Certainly, this is not a secret – all the child’s fellow students and all the staff in the class will know about it. It cannot be claimed, therefore, that this should be kept from the child’s parents in the name of privacy or confidentiality – such things do not exist for social transition, the nature of it requires widespread dissemination. It is instead, as I’ve already said, a conspiracy – a group of people working together to do something, and to keep their activity hidden from other people.

Nothing comparable could be said about gay children, even in the days of Section 28. This is not the same thing.

What do you all think?

In this case, the OP has said that the parents knew about the child's trans identity. The only thing that was being kept secret from them was the school socially transitioning the child. Why does the school think that telling the parents that they have socially transitioned the child will put the child in danger when the parents already know about the child's trans identity?

This ⬆️⬆️⬆️

I've just been catching up on this thread.

OP, I remember you writing about what had happened on a different thread previously and I've been wondering when it might pop up. Well done for raising the case.

Whilst I (reluctantly**) think that a valid question has been raised about whether you followed policy regarding who makes the decision to liaise with a parent (and this will be for the tribunal to decide, not MNers obviously!!), I would hope that any tribunal would be looking at the nuances of what you had shared with the mum. If the mum already knew her child was gender questioning I'm not sure what type of a policy failure this would be. Without trying to ask you to play out your case here on the internet, I guess a key question is "how did you know she knew?". Obviously please don't answer that!

** It's with a very heavy reluctance because from everything you've said, this was not considered to be "an exceptionally rare circumstance[s] where involving parents would constitute a significant risk of harm to the child". Wording is from para 208 in KCSIE. So it's unclear why a DSL would be reluctant to speak to a parent before changing a child's records in school. Particularly when the parent already knew about the distress that their child was experiencing in relation to gender identity. Surely at this point, any well-meaning DSL who is centring a child's safeguarding will be working with a parent on any decisions made in school about their child, given what it says in the KCSIE guidance.

Fortunately, the KCSIE regs plus the law is on the side of the OP.

You’re completely missing the point. In a sense it’s irrelevant what you, I or anyone else thinks. There are correct channels in a professional capacity and this individual did not follow them. If he was unhappy with the procedures being followed then he needed to raise this through the correct channels. He fully deserved to be fired. What he did was horribly unprofessional and potentially dangerous. There will of course be instances where the parents have not been informed because it’s non-statutory guidance. We may not agree with it but it is not illegal. I would perfectly understand those parents lobbying to have it made into statutory guidance. Even if it did become a legal requirement, though, parents would still have to be informed by the professionals responsible for safeguarding and if they did not do so then again, the other member of staff would be perfectly within their rights to raise it within the education setting and perhaps even to the police. They still would have no right to approach the parent directly.

If DSLs in school knew the child may have been at risk of harm from their parent, therefore chose to socially transition the child in direct opposition to KCSIE / Cass advice and at the same time failed to notify anyone who may have been working with the child that there was a risk from their parent, then it is the DSL who is at fault.
If staff were informed about the social transitioning and that the parent must not be informed, then those same staff should have been informed of any risk to the child from the parent.

They broke the rules by not following the policies they agreed to as part of their employment contract especially in not following safeguarding policy meaning they are a safeguarding risk.

Rubbish. He followed the procedures and was ignored and fobbed off. The college deliberately ignored the guidance, which they are most certainly NOT entitled to do.

Hell, they don't even have a policy and even if they cannot ignore Government guidelines, or national legislation.

They could have escalated their concerns in line with kcsie and they didn't.

He did try to escalate it and was fobbed off with lies. Why do you support liars, who deliberately and wilfully ignored Government guidance and who don't even have a policy, which they could have pretended allowed them to breach the guidelines?

There are correct channels in a professional capacity and this individual did not follow them. If he was unhappy with the procedures being followed then he needed to raise this through the correct channels.

What makes you think he didn't do this? Are you part of the safeguarding team at the college or another employee? If so, I don't think you should be commenting here. If not, you don't know all the facts.

There will of course be instances where the parents have not been informed because it’s non-statutory guidance.

What could possibly be a reason for not telling a parent that their child is being socially transitioned at school, when the parent is already aware that the child is gender questioning?

According to the OP, the parents knew about the child being 'gender questioning'. The matter he discussed with the child's mother was that the school was socially transitioning her child and deliberately withholding this action from her.

How is telling the parents of a gender questioning child (when the parents know about the child's trans identity) that the school is socially transitioning their child and deliberately keeping this hidden from the parents 'potentially dangerous'? Where do you think the danger comes from?

Why were social services or the police not involved if they thought the parents were potentially a danger to their child?

All of this ⬆️

But especially this bit ⬇️

And if it was that serious, surely risk assessments were drawn up (so that accidental information didn't get to the mother) and shared widely
(ppl can't follow a risk assessment they don't know about)

As has been said by a few PPs and the OP too, everyone at college knew that this child was using a different name and different pronouns. This then impacts everyone who comes into contact with this child because they have to make a decision about whether they will be a part of this social transition or not, even if they are concerned about the unknown impact of this on a gender questioning child as per KCSIE and the Cass Report that it references.

And perhaps their concerns include whether a child's social transition might impact others too e.g. will the boys at college find that they are now sharing a changing room with this female? What if this female became pregnant on a school trip after sharing a dorm with boys? Is this an acceptable risk from the school's perspective? If so, do all children have an opportunity to go into mixed sex accommodation? What about those whose religion doesn't allow this? etc etc. Are teachers meant to lie to parents about the names that they use for children at the school?

Hopefully the tribunal will be looking at the bigger picture and asking questions that help unpick whether the DSL was ignorant or activist, if this kind of policy and risk assessment hadn't been in place.

Agreed.

The DSL's role in this is critical to understand.

You’re completely missing the point. In a sense it’s irrelevant what you, I or anyone else thinks. There are correct channels in a professional capacity and this individual did not follow them

Yes it's irrelevant what anyone thinks

There are correct channels for gender questioning children and the college did not follow them.

They had no policy so should follow kcsie and the gender Q guidelines. If they were working outside the guidelines they should have had a policy to follow. Ans good reasoning for it.

Just grabbing this bit from my earlier post again...

Are teachers meant to lie to parents about the names that they use for children at the school?

I've been on quite a journey with my own child's school. There are some things that have thankfully improved for the better (there are others that are still concerning but I'm not going to derail this thread) and one of them is the practice of hiding name and pronoun changes from parents.

I've written about this on a previous thread a while ago but worth mentioning here too:

I'm guessing it was about 18 months ago that I was talking to a staff member about my daughter and she used my daughter's school nickname during the conversation - at my daughter's request we had already reverted to her original one at home by this point. She suddenly stopped talking and said "oh, I don't know if I'm meant to have said that name". I said "it's fine, she uses both". The response (paraphrased).... "Oh thank goodness. I get really lost now where there are so many children that we have to use different names for and their parents don't know". And yes, she was definitely talking about social transition. My daughter was gender questioning at the time and this was part of the conversation I was having with the staff member. Her response was in this context. She was talking about how different it all is these days she she's getting more used to it now etc.

I spoke to a different member of staff who I trusted about my concern with these secret names (and pronouns - I asked, it was both). I don't know when they finally changed their approach, other than it was some time prior to a meeting I had with them a few months later where they told me they had done so. But FFS. Why would a school expect staff to lie to parents about their child? And yes, it is a lie because the school has created a whole new narrative about the child on paper - a double life, if you like.

Of course he didn’t follow the correct channels because NONE of them end in speaking to a parent directly. Yes, I do work in an education setting and I would never be this unprofessional. It is absolutely imperative in an education setting that staff don’t take it upon themselves to inform parents of things outside their remit. Staff are not given all information (it’s very irritating at times and we often think it would be helpful if we were given more) and will have absolutely no idea what has or has not been addressed. I’d they SUSPECT that a member of staff has not acted appropriately, there is a ladder of management they can approachIf they’re not happy, they escalate - within the setting - if necessary, they can then escalate to the police. If they escalate to a parent then they fully deserve to be fired.

Out of interest if a 16yo disclosed they were pregnant and seeking a termination would the school tell the parents? I’m genuinely trying to figure out at what age telling the parents of such stuff stops? I’m no expert in safeguarding at all. I don’t disagree with what the OP has done as such and as a parent I’d be glad I was told. But do 16yos have a right to keep such information from their parents?

It's just awful Bonfire, I'm so sorry to read of your experience.

But nail on head; schools and colleges are teaching children to lie to their parents.

They're teaching them to perform major lies that are repeated daily.

That kind of psychological manipulation, and adults demonstrating it, is going to have consequences on the development of these children. Not least to find lying easier.

Surely all those children were not a grave risk from their parents? And poor teacher who has to remember them all - it's a concern as it's shows how easily a teacher could use the wrong name. If the risk to the child (parent finding out) were that great, would the college really put the child in that position?

Oh that makes sense.

These things cannot be compared. Pregnancy is a protected characteristic too as another child is involved.

Kcsie applies to post 16 colleges.

Need to remember that some colleges provide life skills courses to learners with send. Iirc (would need to check) kcsie is then up to 25.

These things cannot be compared. Pregnancy is a protected characteristic too as another child is involved. - meant to say due to the health of the mother. There would be protections post birth obviously relating to the new born child.

So the mum knew the kid felt like they were trans, but she forbade them from changing pronouns etc at college? Or at home, or both?
Is the kid receiving counselling, through the school or separately? It's difficult to know how 'badly' what you did affected the situation and how much more there is to the background.

But if you breached no official policy with the college then the dismissal must be unlawful?

It definitely has been awful, but I'm very conscious that this thread isn't about my and my daughter's situation.

The important bit is the crossover with Steve's experience, even though I'm a parent and he was a member of staff. At the time when my daughter took her "neutral sounding" nickname at school we were still getting our heads around what gender questioning stuff was all about. So were the teachers who we spoke to most about her well-being. They asked us if we'd be happy with a name change at school. At home she'd told us she'd been "thinking about a different name" but hadn't gone any further than that. Suddenly it was already a done deal within the autism unit at school and we were asked to rubber-stamp it for use across the school. We were unsure what all of this meant. I wish we'd had a teacher with Steve's level of knowledge about social transition. Without a doubt, the school's approach to this was the start of a social transition. However, it was sharing our experience on MN that helped me understand that it was just a nickname.

Flip back to Steve's experience here and it's not just a nickname at all... it's a full-on social transition with pronouns too, led by the school. Two sets of parents in two different scenarios: me without a knowledgeable teacher at any level of seniority, pre KCSIE vs the Nottingham parent with a teacher that understood the risk and a statutory safeguarding document that laid the risk out, linking to the Cass Report for further details and flagging the importance of clinical support. The biggest question in the Nottingham scenario is whether the DSL was following the guidance or not.

Too late for the edit:

This should have said pre-KCSIE 2024:

me without a knowledgeable teacher at any level of seniority, pre KCSIE

I'm restricted in what I can say here about my case, but I can answer generalities. If a child were to get pregnant and seek a termination, they would be unlikely to involve the college in this in any way. Unlike a child's "social transition", which necessarily involves the college conspiring and collaborating with the child and deceiving or hiding things from the child's parents.
Were the college to find out accidentally about this hypothetical child's pregnancy and planned termination, they would not be under a duty to inform the child's parents, again unlike a "socially transitioning" child, where KCSiE and DfE Guidance all say that decisions about social transition must be made in consultation with the child's parents and possibly other professionals (doctors, social workers) also. No equivalent guidance states anything remotely similar about a pregnant child seeking a termination.
All the above is assuming there are no exceptional circumstances that might trigger other Safeguarding concerns, of course.

Don’t be so absolutely ridiculous. Think it through for heaven’s sake.
The staff lie by omission to the parents
The staff punish those who aren’t prepared to lie
The staff threaten all sorts on the children if they are responsible for the parents finding out.
And yet it is public knowledge at school.
You won’t be able to keep it from the parents, and by showing to All the parents that you will lie to any of them when a TQ+ person says so, you destroy their trust in the school. You’re Policy is the problem.

When you and your ilk are up in an Employment Tribunal (again!) you are going to be made mince meat of (again!).

The damned policy is the problem. It won’t save you under Cross, and hoping it will just make you look like a Handmaid of low intelligence.

You cannot socially transition children and expect to hide it from their parents, and expect to make everyone else complicit, and to think you are some savior or even a help.

Again, you're misrepresenting KCSIE. It says should, not must. There's a significant legal difference.

It is a "should" not a "must" within those paragraphs, yes. But the whole document is something that schools must have regard for.

And as has been said above, "should" means that it should be followed unless there is good reason not to do so. So yes, a difference in law but what good reason could a school have for creating/upholding a double life for a child?

But the case isn't (just) about whether the school was in the wrong for not following the guidance. The case is about whether they were in the wrong when they fired op for following it. (As I understand it)

Can I ask those who disagree with the OP - from a layman's point of view, there's a sort of either/or thing going on here.

IF the school are expecting their staff to lie to parents, and other children and their parents, otherwise they could be fired, should there not be a good reason?

If there is a good reason to do all this, against official advice, why aren't the staff told what it is?

Are staff really expected to lie to parents, other parents and children without being told why?

Especially as it is about something that the school is proactively doing, which, from what I can gather here, they are advised not to do.