Secondary School mixed sex changing rooms complaint: Update from school (again)

[TangenitalContrivences]

Hello everyone - Have just received a further update from my daughters (14) secondary school (Brighton) regarding my complaint - which is at stage 2 - go to governors complaint, and my further email to the school asking them to comply with the EHRC interim guidance.

I'll copy both responses below, redacted.

I would very, very much appreciate specific feedback to include in my responses to the school, it's been people here (and elsewhere) who have helped me put together really powerful letters that have clearly rattled the school.

However - there is still a male in the female changing spaces at this school. Therefore it is mixed sex.

(link to the last discussion if you want context https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5309038-secondary-school-complaint-about-mixed-sex-changing-rooms-update-school-response-and-request-for-help-writing-the-escalated-complaint-to-governors )

I’m afraid it made me feel a bit suspicious 🙁

I noticed that too, and thought it odd, but explained now. But isn't it the case that the "Brighton toolkit" has been used by schools beyond Brighton? I'm sure I'd read as much here previously.

Yes. Many schools have adopted the kit as an off the shelf, how to deal with trans kids kit, and not given it the thorough going over it needed. I believe it was an Oxford school who were going to be taken to court for using it then dropped it before that resolved.
other schools in the UK will be though, I bet Bristol etc have some?

I'll bet they do. I used to work in Bristol, and know the city pretty well, and have fond memories, but it seems they are well on the way to be Brighton II.

@TangenitalContrivences, I looked up who keeps LA's accountable. In the following order:

Internal Audit Office in the council
National Audit Office
Local Government Ombudsman

The Ombudsman in particular deals with maladministration. The internal audit office will be interested from a finances/insurance viewpoint, as will the NAO. Finally - what might gain action more quickly - is a large group of parents lobbying their Local Councillors and drawing attention to girls being forced to undress in front of boys via the national press.

This is interesting thank you

and I very much agree. I am trying to get critical
mass of local parents to do such a thing. The thing is it sounds too mad to be true. And the local TRAs are quite quite passionate about all this. We need safeguarding focussed parents to speak publically to school

Multi Academy Trusts are usually across counties, so the Trust central team would be less Brighton-focused.

I asked because of your focus on 'going after' the Head and DSL (I'm a DSL). I think they're the wrong people to go after. School Headteachers are just puppets, they have to toe the party line of Trust policies, or like this case LA policies. A Head, and in turn DSL, simply have no option but to follow the policies of the LA/Trust. They would be sacked if they refused to follow Brighton LA policy on this.

It is the policy makers you need to be going after. Literally nothing can happen to the Head or DSL here. Even if they fundamentally and morally disagree with the policy, if they are told they must follow it then they must. Their defense will be: here is the mandatory policy. Open and shut case of not being culpable. They can't be culpable because they cannot decide not to follow policy of their sponsor (Trust or LA).

I expect the Head and DSL will have documented an email to the LA requesting the policy is reviewed. I am certain the Head will be sharing all your communication with the LA safeguarding team. His reason for doing these things is Back Covering. It shows he is clearly raising this safeguarding concern to the body who own the policy. That's what the Head (and DSL) should do. What they can't do is change the policy themselves or choose not to follow it.

What has the lawyer you’re in contact with said?

They’ve not replied yet. I know they’re a judicial
review specialist.

This is really interesting thank you and certainly not a perspective I’ve heard so far.

the governors head and safeguarding lead are all still directly responsible for following this policy. The local
authority have clearly stated this in writing. It’s the schools
choice and only the schools choice

I don’t see how anyone would be sacked for protecting girls and following the EHRC interim guidance. I could be wrong please explain more!

They don't have to force girls to get undressed in front of boys. I'm sure a third space would be within the policy. Forcing girls to get undressed in front of boys is anti-safeguarding and against the law, no matter what 'policies' are written.

If the LA says to do something illegal and anti - KCSIE (which this is) they don't have to follow because the law and safeguarding guidance takes precedence. After all, the first point made in any safeguarding training is that motivated predators will try and infiltrate safeguarding positions of trust - so following actual safeguarding law (not LA policies) is always what must be done if the two conflict, which they do. If this wasn't the case any paedophile who hasn't yet been caught could enact policies to protect them in abusing. Following a policy is not an excuse for causing ongoing active harm to children and creating a high level of risk, which this is.

I’m sure I’ve read on here that it’s also illegal to incite people to break the law.
So would this not cover the LA instructing the HT and school to follow policies which are not legal?

IANAL but to my mind a JR here would include the LA?

Under section 111 it is a breach of the Equality Act 2010 to incite others to commit a breach of the Equality Act 2010. I'm not sure that it has ever been successfully invoked.

Alison Bailey's claim against Stonewall under Section 111 did not succeed at Employment Tribunal & a subsequent appeal was also unsuccessful. She has been granted permission to take her case to the Court of Appeal.

IANAL but I suspect that as the safeguarding breach against children is happening in the school, then that's where the legal challenge needs to be. It's the Head, the DSL and governors who have direct responsibility for the safety and welfare of children and it's them who need to be held to account for insisting that teenage girls must undress alongside teenage boys. It would be possible I presume to add the Head of the Trust to the challenge?
The fact that having had the safeguarding breach raised with them, they've doubled down and insisted that girls must continue exposing their undressed bodies to teenage boys (and presumably vice versa) should make it much easier to evidence their lack of concern for safeguarding and welfare.

Agree Mrs O; My understanding of safeguarding within schools, as a teacher, is that the school, namely the head, is ultimately responsible.

I suppose it’s whether a JR would include LA advice / attitude etc

Surely schools have to the autonomy to make their own policies, and the accountability for doing so.

They could choose to reject the LA model policies. Plus, the governors (maintained) and trustees (academies) don't get involved in how the school is run. They just make sure that policies exist and are adhered to.

The content of the schools' policies is down to the Head. It is the Head's responsibility to define what good looks like, usually with the support of the DSL.

Just caught up... I can see there are other posts saying similar to mine above.

I understand the argument for going to the top - like the teenage girl and her mother who went for a JR against the CPS when they overreached and wrote nasty predatory trans guidelines for schools promoting the rights of men & boys to be in changing rooms, toilets etc with girls.
The reverse ferret at the CPS was lightening fast when they realised the implications of the Crown Prosecution Service having to defend in court a policy that promoted voyeurism and indecent exposure against girls.

But in this instance, it's clear that schools are directly legally responsible for safeguarding children. The legal accountability is clear in schools and following non statutory "guidance" that enables voyeurism and indecent exposure will be extremely challenging for the Governors and senior staff to defend in court.

I've only been DSL in academies that are part of Multi Academy Trusts, three different large MATs. I don't have experience of LA run schools, so they may have different models.

In a MATs, especially the larger MATs, academies and their Heads have very little say over the content of key policies (like child protection, behaviour, code of conduct etc). They have a degree of control, because Headteachers know the context of their local community, but surprisingly little and for some policies they will have no say at all. Mostly Headteachers and SLT are paid to put in practice Trust policies. Smaller MATs may listen to the wishes of the Head more, but policies are still driven by Trust it just might be more of a collaboration rather than dictatorship.

Having said that, I've just read the Brighton & Hove Trans Toolkit (with my DSL hat on) and it states clearly that decisions on use of the toolkit sit only with the Headteacher. So regardless of the above, this toolkit isn't mandatory and so this Headteacher is deciding to do this, rather than bring made to.

If I was DSL, I would be pushing back to the Head with regards to this. But that said, I've previously worked for a different Local Authority who were very pro-trans. It was hard for our (MAT run) academy to challenge the rhetoric coming from Childrens Services. This was at a time when pushing on that was would be labled transpobe and biggotted. This is less the case now (except B&H, it seems).

Good luck with your mission OP.

Reas this today and thought of you, OP. Very different discussion, but part of the wider picture- https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/education/sweaty-betty-foundation-campaign-change-school-changing-rooms-girls-skipping-pe-5183629

MATs are a different world to LA schools or standalone academies. In the latter two the Heads are actual Heads and DO have the power to decide policy.

@TangenitalContrivences and/or @TangenitalContrivence, I presume you’ve seen this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5278805-school-gender-questioning-policy

Follow up chat detailing the FOI responses and asking for help writing to insurers here https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5361843-single-sex-changing-spaces-in-brighton-secondary-schools-part-4?utm_campaign=Mumsnet_Mention_Notification&utm_source=echobox&utm_medium=email&reply=145270117

OP has created a new thread here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5404868-single-sex-changing-spaces-in-a-brighton-secondary-school-new-school-year-new-thread