“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?

Thats one way to announce you didn't read it. Keep reading till you get to the bit about raising concerns about staff which is what OP is relying on - that the safeguarding lead wasn't acting appropriately- what does it tell him to do?

By contrast, every member of staff is under an obligation to put the child's safeguarding needs at the centre of all their actions under Working Together to Safeguard Children, where section 11 says that "children's welfare is paramount".

Do you wanna point to anywhere in KCSIE or indeed any safeguarding policy where any staff member should take it upon themselves to directly contact a parent and how given he knew nothing of the situation that was him putting the child's safeguarding needs at the centre?

I will feel free and you haven't seen me be rude yet! Sorry you take some sort of personal offense at people pointing out OP should read and understand a piece of guidance before he decides to break his employment contract somehow thinking KCSIE defends his actions.

However since he wants money to fight his employer it would be helpful if he also told us what his employers safeguarding policy says so we can know if he disregarded that too.

You want him to hold his tribunal case on Mumsnet?

WarriorN has already said that the policy is available online, so I'll borrow some of your own words and suggest that the OP is not going to pinpoint It for you as clearly you haven't read It so why not go read the whole policy?

Alternatively, don't read it and/or don't pay him any money to fight the case. All good.

Why do you think it is then? Is there a reason why that you think justifies acting in contravention of the guidance you're relying on to break the rules of your employment?

LOL if wants to post on a public forum about it then surely people can respond with their opinion. OP isn't quoting his employers safeguarding policy to defend his case, he's quoting KCSIE.

HollyBerryz · Today 11:47

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?

Jeez, RTFT!

The girl's mam already knew that her daughter is "gender questioning." There's no suggestion of possible abuse, except from a few fantasists.

I will feel free and you haven't seen me be rude yet! Sorry you take some sort of personal offense at people pointing out OP should read and understand a piece of guidance before he decides to break his employment contract somehow thinking KCSIE defends his actions.

😂😂😂

Please do point to the bit I'm missing. I'm not perfect, I accept I could have missed it. If it makes you feel good, please do go Full Pelt on rudeness. I'm not going to take it personally, I'm just genuinely keen to read the bit you're referring to.

Do you wanna point to anywhere in KCSIE or indeed any safeguarding policy where any staff member should take it upon themselves to directly contact a parent and how given he knew nothing of the situation that was him putting the child's safeguarding needs at the centre?

Back to the imagined scenario that the mother was a risk; safeguarding had an opportunity there to emphasise that.

He believed his employer was a risk, which, in this precise context, is what is described in kcsie, urging caution.

Complaints that count as whistleblowing
You’re protected by law if you report any of the following:
• a criminal offence, for example fraud
• someone’s health and safety is in danger
• risk or actual damage to the environment
• a miscarriage of justice
• the company is breaking the law, for example does not have the right insurance
• you believe someone is covering up wrongdoing

Usernamesareboring1 · Today 16:54

As you say there are clear guidelines to follow and that OP has failed to follow them, would you like to follow the example of other posters and give us screenshots, or a link, highlighting the relevant paragraphs?

So read it then? It's not actually that many pages considering some are definitions and links etc. Given your posts, it's a pertinent issue to you. You don't just cherrypick parts of a policy to read, you have to read it all in context. You'll have had to miss a pretty big paragraph / section with a very relevant title to have missed it unless you're skim reading.

OP isn't quoting his employers safeguarding policy to defend his case, he's quoting KCSIE.

Yes, the statutory guidelines

Why do you think it is then? Is there a reason why that you think justifies acting in contravention of the guidance you're relying on to break the rules of your employment?

Yes, if they're breaking the recommended guidelines and putting a child at risk.

Genuine question - why do you and PP not want to read the KCSIE guidance? Why do you want to just assume OP is correct and anyone who says they're wrong has to provide you with a screenshot of a small section to read rather than you read the whole thing? Does it not seem strange to you that you care about keeping children safe in education and thought me saying OP was acting against policy was funny when you haven't read It?

But the guidelines give a process for escalating if the college is breaking guidelines and the advice is NOT to take it upon yourself to inform the child's mother yourself hence he's been fired.

You don't abandon safeguarding just because it's not been done in the right way.

the advice is NOT to take it upon yourself to inform the child's mother yourself

Where is that advice?

Exactly and OPs actions abandoned safeguarding, that's why he's been fired.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education--2

It would be a massive reach to try and say that telling the mother was whistleblowing.

It's 185 pages long.

We've been very precise with quotes.

the advice is NOT to take it upon yourself to inform the child's mother yourself

Where is that specific advice in that wording?

I actually did a search for the term 'inform' and the opposite phrase was there a few times, but within context of sexual abuse and assault.

They're going against government advice, putting a child at risk, and using loaded, ideological language to justify it to the OP.

If they claimed it would out the child to her mother, they're lying.

The OP breaking protocol, is the least of their worries, in my opinion.

As I said, if he loses on a technicality, which is always possible, he wins on the moral high ground, and the glare of publicity.

That's worth the crowd funder alone.

You'll have had to miss a pretty big paragraph / section with a very relevant title to have missed it unless you're skim reading.

I feel like I'm on a treasure hunt.

It really would be easier if you just said which section you're referring to 🤦‍♀️

Given your posts, it's a pertinent issue to you.

I'm not a teacher who is worried about a DSL's actions. But yes, I'm interested in this case. So are you presumably, given you're posting on this thread?

See this is why OP is in the situation he's in, perhaps he couldn't be bothered to read either. Yes I know it's 186 pages - but given you are very invested in this man's case surely it would benefit you to have read and understand the guidance? Or just throw your money at it regardless, I don't mind.

Yeah turns out you can't just try and do a quick confirmation bias check by searching a word, it's almost like people should read and have an understanding of safeguarding before take direct action involving a child.

Confirmation bias check?

Here's a genuine question, Usernames, do you, personally, believe that it is ever acceptable to socially transition a vulnerable child without their parent's knowledge?

Yes and I've read the guidance so I find it interesting to see OP misquoting it to justify asking people to give him their hard earned money on a case he's likely to lose.

Genuinely, why do you want it to be "easier" , do you want to understand or not? Policies exist as a whole in context. I'm not saying you have to want to read KCSIE but if you don't, why are you taking it upon yourself to quote me arguing given you haven't read it?

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

Why do you think this could put the child at risk?

The mother of this child knows that the child is gender questioning. So you are saying that if the mother knew that the school had socially transitioned her child, and deliberately kept this information from her (even though all the staff and students at the college knew about the social transition), this could put the child at risk.

Eventually, it's almost certain that the parent would discover this secret social transition, since it isn't really that secret, because the whole college knew about it, and it was only the mother who was kept in the dark. At this point, according to you, the school's action in socially transitioning the child puts the child at risk.

If you really believe that the parent discovering that the school had covertly socially transitioned her child could put the child at risk, there's a simple solution to this. The school could just have not socially transitioned the child, then there would be no risk to her.

Why did the school socially transition the child without parental involvement? According to the Cass review, this sets the child on a medical pathway with serious consequences. According to you, this puts the child at risk from her own parents (although nobody has explained why this might be the case). Why do it then?

Why do you want to go off topic? Whether it's unacceptable or not, safeguarding is still important and an employee who blatantly disregards policy for how to protect a child is a safeguarding risk.