“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?

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.

And yet you won't quote the key parts .

You're very keen to victim blame and skirt the fact that the college created the entire situation by not following the guidelines, even if they're not fully legal. They are highly recommended.

Off topic?

The college abandoned safeguarding. What should happen to all the staff involved in this action?

safeguarding is still important and an employee who blatantly disregards policy for how to protect a child is a safeguarding risk.

The employer blatantly disregards policy

And para 74 is relevant.

If a child is at such risk of harm from their parent that we can't tell them they've socially transitioned at school, the child shouldn't even be in that parent's care.

That is not a matter for a school to decide, that would be decided in court.

If a parent is listed on our system as having parental responsibility, we (the school) should not be hiding anything from them that we do with the child.

Indeed, it's a parent's right to request a copy of all internal notes, records and correspondence about the child.

I've worked at schools where parents have exerted that right and we've had to copy across all notes we have about that child.

It's totally clear that the school here haven't followed guidance.

However, that's not even the question at the heart of the tribunal (as I understand it). The question is whether the school was right to fire op for (attempting to) follow the guidance, when his employer instructed him to act against the guidance, arguably putting the child at risk of harm.

From my pov the DSL should be fired.

I don't really understand your logic here. How is OP breaking safeguarding protocol the least of their concerns when his argument is that he broke the guidance because he thought they weren't following it, like tit for tat? Perhaps if OP had followed protocol and felt that every stage he escalated to was disregarding government advice maybe then he would win on the moral high ground I.e. his hand was forced to "do the right thing" as up to the local authority level guidance wasn't being followed. Unfortunately it sounds like he didn't do that or even start it beyond the first step?

So you're not going to point to the bit you're referring to. Got it 👍

"Thanks"

Bang on robin. If you actually read go through KCSiE, it repeatedly says parents should / must be informed in various contexts

Even if a child discloses abuse by a parent we have to inform the parent and make a record of the response.

OP abandoned safeguarding, given the limited info he has given you really can't confidently say the school did.

A pp here keeps saying that op has "broken safeguarding protocol". It is nonsense.

I've worked in several schools and I have never come across any "safeguarding protocol" that says we should hide information from parents with parental responsibility.

We only do that if parental responsibility has been removed by the courts (which is pretty rare, for example the parent is in prison or similar circumstances)

as up to the local authority level guidance wasn't being followed

The elephant in the room is how badly Nottingham as a whole is captured. Nadia for example.

Para 74. Again

Stephen can't tell us a number of details about the case that may help here.

The lawyer he's retained is bloody good so the lawyer must see a case.

No because I think being as badly misinformed as OP is by cherry picking lines to read is what has gotten him in this situation. I did give you loads of clues of where to find it tbf but you sound like you want to form an opinion based on reading something easy on MN rather than actually informing yourself.

I've tried to point that out but apparently "correct procedures for complaints" seem to trump anything else.

It's not off-topic!

Many of these institutions are captured by the ideology.

Their use of ideological language proves it.

OldCrone has nailed it.

If the child is at risk of their parents discovering they've been socially transitioned, then don't bloody do it. Against government advice too!

The school is actively doing something, that the government advises against, that Cass says it's not a neutral act, that has lifelong medical implications, and their response to the op is to justify it with empty ideological language.

A position that you seem to be defending, on the basis of protocols not being followed.

So my question, again, is do you think there is ever an occasion where a school should socially transition a vulnerable child in secret.

Very pertinent, because that's exactly what we are talking about.

I did give you loads of clues of where to find it

Just list the paragraphs! Not difficult.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66d7301b9084b18b95709f75/Keepingchildrennsafeinneducation_2024.pdf

If the protocol gives you clear instruction of how to raise concerns and you do the complete opposite and decide to contact a child's parent when you are not in a position to do so, then you're breaking protocol. Does your schools guidance really say "this is the guidance and if you think we aren't following it correctly just contact the child's parent yourself"?

No we're talking about KCSIE as OP thinks it justified breaking his employment contract and it doesn't.

So my question, again, is do you think there is ever an occasion where a school should socially transition a vulnerable child in secret.

THE question.

They won't answer

Because "protocols weren't followed for complaints ...."

Babe in all this time you could have read it . Do you hate reading or something? 😂 You sound like all those college students nowadays that can't read any long form piece of text cos they've only ever had to read quotes.

'Clues'

No we're not. We're talking about the morality of it.

edited to say, that we are actually talking about both. But they are intertwined

No we're talking about KCSIE as OP thinks it justified breaking his employment contract and it doesn't.

Paragraph 74 basically states that employment contacts do not trump safeguarding vulnerable children.

did he sign a contract to say he'd keep secrets from children? Or that he'd follow statutory safeguarding guidelines

It's not THE question though is it? I can disagree with social transition and still disagree that staff should be breaking KCSIE and all safeguarding principlea by contacting a parent to inform them rather than following the guidance to escalate. You don't take a stance against a college not following guidance by disregarding the guidance yourself - you're just saying protocol and safeguarding is meaningless then.

Babe in all this time you could have read it . Do you hate reading or something? 😂

Ooh

Showing your true colours and lack of ability to quote what's been asking.