“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?

This ⬆️

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall to hear the DSL explain to staff that "even though the parents already know that their daughter is gender questioning, it's really important that we support [name] to lead a double life in a new name and with different pronouns, without their parents' knowledge, because...."??

However, I don't know if an employment tribunal will want an answer to this. I assume it's more likely that they'll be looking at whether the OP broke school policy in having this conversation with the mum. So does the school have a policy which explains why and how a parent should be kept out of the loop in this situation? Does it explain how far they have to go to maintain this duplicity without any outside agency (e.g. Children's Services) also supporting it?

From the Crowdfunder:

"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."

And:

"I also maintain that my actions can be treated as a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996."

The school is acting as if being gender questioning and seeking social transition is the same as being gay e.g. it's private information and the child should decide how, when and to whom they should "come out". But that's TRA speak. Paragraphs 205 and 206 of the KCSIE guidance make it very clear that it's not the same thing and that the risk profile is completely different. It says that being LGB means a child is at risk of bullying. Being gender questioning comes with completely different additional risks, as laid out in paragraph 206 and the Cass Report to which it references.

If this wasn't about gender identity but something else which could lead a child to harm, would staff be expected to keep that a secret from parents too? E.g. if the school became aware that the child was involved in county lines stuff or was sharing radicalised ideas with other students related to religion? A child who is in danger of being radicalised by gender identity belief needs the support of their parents as much as a child in either of these other two scenarios. It's not the school's place to decide otherwise, unless it's already clear that this child's parents are a danger to them and the risk that the parents pose is being actively managed under its safeguarding/child protection policy - and Prevent if applicable.

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.

As I said before, If the reason is they think that there is a risk from home, they're directly putting the child in a very risky situation by telling that many staff and pupils

exceptional circumstances that might trigger other Safeguarding concerns

If an lsa made an official safeguarding referral querying decisions, and raising concerns, I'd absolutely expect those exceptional circumstances to be shared as part of the risk management process

Cass says social transition is not a neutral act.

The School are proactively helping a vulnerable child to a situation that could eventually lead to medical transition. It would appear they can only do it by cutting the parents out of the picture, and telling everyone else to do the same and lie to them. Including all the other vulnerable children, and their parents.

IF a teacher informing the parents what is happening is deemed to be an act worthy of the sack, then let's fucking have it.

Let's have the headlines, let's have the questions in Parliament, let's have the public outrage.

And maybe we'll get fewer people gleefully wagging their bloody fingers at professionals trying to protect vulnerable kids from this awful ideology.

An ideology that requires trusted professionals, teachers, your colleagues, vulnerable children and their parents to act like perfidious liars, in order to strip parents of their power and responsibility.

I hope the OP wins, but if he/she doesn't, it's still a win, because it will be a splashed across the front of every paper in the land.

If an employer's policies don't comply with the law, or put a child at risk, doesn't that make them void?

IF a teacher informing the parents what is happening is deemed to be an act worthy of the sack, then let's fucking have it.

🎯

Steve, I hope you know just how many parents (and teachers, I'm assuming) you'll have behind you on this.
Annoyingly, you may lose because the tribunal will be looking at the narrow question around whether the school was right to sack you based on you going against a DSL directive. A batshit one that's potentially/likely dangerous for the child and pretty much impossible to navigate as a teacher. But a directive nonetheless. However, this case is worth every penny of the fight.

The draft Gender Questioning Children guidance exposes gender identity for what it is: a belief that not everyone holds. This is how it describes it on page 7. Why are schools forcing their staff to follow this belief - and lie to parents as part of this - when it's putting children at risk of harm? This should be a Prevent matter. This isn't an innocuous belief. It's up there with the Branch Davidians in Waco and the People's Temple in Jonestown. DSLs and other staff who are promising to keep their child's practices under this belief secret from parents are playing their part in a child being radicalised.
Let's get some sunlight on it.

I hope the OP wins, but if he/she doesn't, it's still a win, because it will be a splashed across the front of every paper in the land.

⬆️💪🍿☀️

Exactly Datun.

Basically via their actions, the college operates a policy whereby they facilitate the social transition of under 18s and give them the right or opportunity to not inform their parents.

Given KCSiE, statutory guidance, citing the Cass review, which says social transition is not a neutral act (I.e. adults agreeing the child has gender dysphoria and needs to transition) specifically says schools and colleges should work with parents and other professionals, the college isn't following statutory guidance.

Will be interesting to learn their reasoning for not doing so.

The case isn't specifically about that, but it's the reason the situation came about and need's clarifying in safeguarding law.

If they choose to work outside guidelines they will have to create a policy on that which will have to be shared with parents.

It's pretty risky for a school or college to do that however.

If an employer's policies don't comply with the law, or put a child at risk, doesn't that make them void?

Said much more succinctly 👏

Yes, because you really should let adults usher children into a pathway that’s likely to lead to serious physical and mental harm.
🙄

I assume you've posted this in here precisely because you know the majority will agree with you.

If there are safeguarding issues within a setting there are ways to escalate things further. It doesn't sound like you followed the correct procedure and I dare say that's why you've been fired. You shouldn't have gone to the parent and could have put the child at risk by doing so. You don't seem concerned about that safeguarding issue though.

You shouldn't have gone to the parent and could have put the child at risk by doing so.

How?

This thread has certainly attracted the attention of a few, hasn't it?

If informing parents puts the child at risk of harm I'd say that's a pretty good reason for not adhering to a 'should'. It's not a 'must'.

Really? You can't figure out how? It doesn't occur to you that some parents would kick off and treat their child poorly because of it? That the child could be at risk of physical harm in some households? You don't remember when parents would disown their kids if they came out as gay? Come off it.

They didn't say that. They said it was 'outing' the child.

What? That the school considered they had a medical condition that if followed through to its logical end could conclude in the child being sterilised and with compromised sexual function??

So please don't tell the parents??

Ffs.

Who says they're gay??

They have gender dysphoria.

@HollyBerryz

Huge straw man argument.

That particular reasoning wasn't given.

If that was the identified risk, the college put the child in a hugely dangerous situation by telling all the staff and all the children.

How on earth would they have safeguarded against it slipping out accidentally? What on earth would the risk assessment have looked like?

If they genuinely think the child is at risk that needs to be addressed through the correct channels.

Social transitioning is the beginning of a medical pathway that really could put the child of risk, and the school do not have the authority to deal with that without the parents.

You are right @Steve3742 and thank you for your courage in the face of this disastrous unthink.

@Merrymouse and ops concerns should also have been addressed via the correct channels. The fact college may or may not be at fault doesn't mean or justify the op going rogue

Thank you @Steve3742. Thank you for the courage to protect that vulnerable child and how appalling that a college would not only do this but also fire you. I've done some gardening on CrowdJustice and hope it helps.

To the drive by scolders and resident TRAs, IIRC English schools guidance, long predating Cass, is that unless the school or college has knowledge of safeguarding concerns parents should always be involved. Cass and DfE guidance strengthen this. Nottingham College potentially endangered this child, ignored attempts to correct them then sacked the whistle blower. Not good (as I suspect their lawyers are now telling them).

OP just a word of caution. Your post may be outing as you say your employer and position. As you are going to tribunal I would be careful you are litigating by social media and this may note you. While I don’t disagree with you I think you should consider taking the post down.

There are two different issues here:

Have college acted in a way they shouldn't

Has the op acted in a way they shouldn't

The former is debatable. No one here will know all the facts and we'll never really know unless it becomes a court case in itself. We can all have an opinion though.

The latter is categorically a yes. At no point of the process should op have gone to the parent. There's no defending this. IF the college have acted unlawfully/wrongly, it doesn't mean the OP gets too as well.

Has this already been in the press? because I'm sure I read it somewhere this week. So either it's already out or the op isn't the actual TA.

Or maybe the OP could just request the deletion of any replies that he has made?

The replies have been in good faith but perhaps it may be more cautious not to respond directly to posts.

It's a good thread with lots of interesting points being raised.

One for the OP to discuss with the lawyer rather than responding on here, perhaps 🙃 I hope the thread can stay.