Working Group - KCSIE 2026 changes - improve the guidance via the consultation process, promote more responses & more

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Hello everyone - I was hoping to start a working group of some sort in order to respond to the proposed changes to KCSIE (Keeping Children Safe In Education)

Press release https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-publish-new-gender-guidance-for-schools

Proposed changes and response mechanism https://consult.education.gov.uk/independent-education-and-school-safeguarding-division/keeping-children-safe-in-education-2026-revisions/

I have a large personal interest in this. If you are not aware, I am the father in this article in The Times https://archive.ph/C4eXs

Can we come together to build a strategy of supporting the parts the changes which are great, for example the very clear statements of toilets and changing rooms being single sex?

And think how to propose possible changes to the statements about sport and especially about allowing social transitioning at school?

I'd very much love to hear your ideas and suggestions. I don't want to lead the group especially or tell anyone what to do - I am certain there are people with more knowledge than me, but I thought I could start off the conversation?

Thanks, I will keep going! Your posts are great - really thoughtful and based on experience. If we are going to "be kind" it is genuinely difficult for schools to get this right. We need to help them move from a theoretical discussion where everyone is kind and unicorns lurk under the rainbows in every school to the hard reality of what life is like for our kids. Hearing the thoughts of parents with experience of interacting with schools about the children in question is extremely helpful. This includes dealing with detransition / desistence - I'm glad there is a paragraph on this in the KCSIE draft (haven't read it yet though. I'm sure I will have thoughts!)

261. The Cass Review is clear that outcomes for children and adolescents are best if they have a supportive relationship with their families and, in the vast majority of cases, we would expect schools/colleges and parents/carers to work together to establish what is best for the child based on clinical advice from the child’s medical team. Involving a child’s parents/carers will enable schools and colleges to promote a child’s wellbeing and protect them from harm.

Thoughts: I can’t think of any case where parents/carers should not be fully involved. Suggested edits above

Yes, in particular, male teachers asking to be called "Miss".

I think this is inappropriate for several reasons.

• different risk profiles of male and female people
• transwomen have reported being "euphoric" when children call them "Miss" - we know that this can be an aspect of fetish

262. Schools and colleges should explore how best to support these conversations, including offering a staff member to be present or to speak to parents or carers on the child’s behalf. However, in the rare circumstances where involving parents or carers would constitute a greater risk to the child than not involving them, the school or college should involve their Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) to determine what action is needed to safeguard the child, before the parents are contacted or any decisions are taken.

Thoughts: Schools should be extremely mindful of creating a triangulation by appearing to support the child “against” their parents. This can be damaging to the child and negatively impact the family dynamic.

The way this paragraph is written implies there are some circumstances where parents would not be involved. I don’t think this is what is meant (I hope it is not) and it should therefore be clarified, perhaps:
“However, In the extremely rare circumstances where the school believes involving parents or carers would constitute a greater risk to the child than not involving them, the school or college should involve their Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) to determine whether child social services should be involved before the parents/carers are contacted. what action is needed to safeguard the child, before the parents are contacted. or any decisions are taken.

THIS
Transactivists are desperate to cling on to the "parents as a risk to their children if they fail to enthusiastically endorse all aspects of a sex change for their child.
Thinking of all my years working with students with other mental health challenges such as eating disorders, anxiety, self harm, suicidal ideation etc I cannot recall any "advice" or policy being framed as "we work with parents except.....". Doesn't happen.
Yes some of these children may well have abusive / problem parents but that's picked up via safeguarding policy and interagency work around the issues. Specialists advising schools about how to work with these children never suggest not working with parents.

It's a fundamental undermining of working in partnership with parents. Only the courts can remove parental responsibility and it's really important to remove this transactivist dominated demand. Parents can't safeguard their children if they're kept in the dark about these issues.

Sorry for the rant but this fundamental undermining of the parent child dynamic enrages me.

263. The advice above applies in cases where a child has requested support with social transition. In cases where a child confides in a member of staff about their feelings but does not ask the school or college to make changes to how they are treated, there is no reason to break any confidence unless there is a related safeguarding risk.

Accommodating social transition is an active intervention so schools and colleges should take a very careful approach

I would add: and only support social transition where it has been medically indicated by the child’s clinicians

Thoughts: the correlation of gender questioning children with comorbid mental health issues including depression, anxiety, autism, ADHD and PTSD is well documented. IMO this is a related safeguarding risk and parents should be informed. Furthermore, this doesn’t cover what the member of staff may say in response to a child making such a declaration.

Possibly an additional sentence “The member of staff should strongly encourage the child to discuss their concerns with their parents/carer.”

I’d love to hear others views on this one as it feels less clear cut. What would a school do if they noticed evidence of cutting or if a child confided that they felt really anxious - would a school normally inform parents in these situations? If so then it's a no-brainer, they should do in this type of instance also.

I think the following two pars are OK assuming the earlier edits were made.

264. Schools and colleges should take a very careful approach in relation to social transition. The Cass Review acknowledged that there is a lack of good evidence on the long-term impact of social transition on young people, but it is clear that social transition should be viewed as an active intervention that may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning and longer-term outcomes. Primary schools should exercise particular caution, and we would expect support for full social transition to be agreed very rarely.

265. The Cass Review acknowledges that older children will generally have greater agency to make their own decisions. Maintaining flexibility and keeping children’s options open will help to avoid a child feeling they are under pressure to commit to a potentially irrevocable pathway when they are young.

Schools and colleges should comply with obligations under the Equality Act and Human Rights Act when considering requests for support with social transition

My version:

Where a social transition is indicated by a child’s clinicians, schools and colleges should comply with obligations under the Equality Act and Human Rights Act when considering how best to support this

267. In line with the responsibilities of schools and colleges to adhere to the highest standards of safeguarding for the children and young people in their care, alongside obligations under the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012 and the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014, schools must not allow pupils into toilets, changing rooms, or boarding or residential accommodation designated for the opposite sex, with no exceptions. Similarly, where schools have implemented single-sex sports as being necessary for safety reasons, there should be no exceptions and pupils must not be allowed to participate in sports designated for the opposite sex. Colleges should follow the same principles.

Thoughts: tick, good 😀

Not sure whether the "necessary for safety reasons" is a loophole worth closing? My DC not sporty and their school split PE by sex so it's not an issue I've had to give any thought to.

268. In relation to other policies, the school or college will need to consider whether the policy will place a child who is questioning their gender (and other gender-questioning children) at a disadvantage relative to other children of the same sex. Schools and colleges should consider this both when developing the policy itself and when considering requests to be exempt from such policies. Where the rule or policy does place a gender-questioning child (and other gender-questioning children) at a disadvantage, the school or college should consider the following:
(1) What are the aims of the policy?
(2) Is there another way of achieving the same aim? Might a policy be adopted or an exception made that still achieves that aim?
(3) What is the impact of the rule, or of making an exception (or not making an exception) on the child themselves and anyone else affected?
The school or college should balance the impact of agreeing the child’s clinician’s request against the impact of refusing their request, taking into account all the relevant factors. This will include taking into account the school or college’s judgment about whether supporting social transition is in both the child’s best interests and the best interests of other children, as above.

Thoughts: what does “taking into account all the relevant factors” mean here? This doesn’t seem clear.

My suggested edits underlined above

Still skimming but jumping in here...

My suggested change in italics.

267. In line with the responsibilities of schools and colleges to adhere to the highest standards of safeguarding for the children and young people in their care, alongside obligations under the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012 and the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014, schools must not allow pupils or staff into toilets, changing rooms, or boarding or residential accommodation designated for the opposite sex, with no exceptions. Similarly, where schools have implemented single-sex sports as being necessary for safety reasons (or any other legitimate aim), there should be no exceptions and pupils must not be allowed to participate in sports designated for the opposite sex. Colleges should follow the same principles.

Keep up the good work. You're on fire! 🔥🔥🔥

Edited to add some extra words in the sports bit.

269. When discussing requests with children and their parents/carers, schools and colleges should take time to sensitively explain that supporting any degree of social transition will not include allowing access to toilets, changing rooms or boarding or residential accommodation designated for the opposite sex, and will not include allowing children to join PE classes designated for the opposite sex where there are safety reasons for single-sex PE.

Thoughts: it seems important to explicitly include parents in a conversation of this nature - see suggested addition underlined

Here’s the PE loophole again “where there are safety reasons for single-sex PE.”

Ooh yes, good catch! Definitely should include "or staff"

It's like whack-a-mole isn't it?! I've suggested some additional words in italics here too.

There's a whole thread on the sports bit of the KCSIE guidance. I'll grab a link to it when I get chance. It contains a whole load of filibustering about how great mixed-sex sports can be (FFS) but also has some useful info.

269. When discussing requests with children and their parents/carers, schools and colleges should take time to sensitively explain that supporting any degree of social transition will not include allowing access to toilets, changing rooms or boarding or residential accommodation designated for the opposite sex, and will not include allowing children to join PE classes designated for the opposite sex where there are safety reasons (or any other legitimate aim) for single-sex PE.

270. The school or college should also make sure that children and their families are aware that while the school or college will appropriately sanction any cases of bullying or harassment, and take a strong stand against bullying, the school or college must also be conscious of the rights of pupils and staff in relation to their religion or belief. However, schools and colleges supporting social transition might consider discussing options with pupils and staff such as using names instead of pronouns.

Thoughts: This seems super unclear. It is pussyfooting around instead of being clear that other pupils and staff have rights under the Equality Act in relation to religion or belief and may not be prepared to use opposite sex pronouns for a child undertaking social transition (and shouldn't be made to do so).

Suggested version

Notwithstanding paragraph 250 (bullying is never tolerated), the school or college must also be conscious of the rights of pupils and staff in relation to their religion or belief and must not compel the use of opposite sex pronouns. However, Schools and colleges supporting social transition might consider discussing options with pupils and staff such as using names instead of pronouns. However, pupils’ and staff’s beliefs should be respected and they should never feel pressurised or compelled to speak in a way that does not reflect their values.

Again this undermines many school safeguarding, pastoral care and confidentiality policies. Transactivists are very keen on individual adults deciding to keep a child's confidences - "our secret".
Many schools do not encourage the keeping of such confidences but tell teachers that they need share these with the relevant DSL / pastoral lead. The principle of "not working alone" is baked into safeguarding practice .Individual teachers are unlikely to have an overview of a child's history in the way that a DSL or safeguarding lead will have . So what on the face of it may seem passing teenage angst could, if you know the background, be a safeguarding issue.

Again it's transactivism rather than balanced educational practice where adults are advised to be alert to concerns and to share these with relevant staff.

Edited to add - It's encouraging professional dangerousness by encouraging secret keeping. It also puts a massive responsibility on often young inexperienced staff to assess individual levels of risk in relation to exceptionally complex mental health related issues - again something that you shouldn't do alone.

Your version is great but I think it needs to go even further. Apologies if my formatting is a bit confusing. I've deleted words that I'm suggesting need removal (including where I agree with your proposed removal) and have included suggested additions in italics:

Notwithstanding paragraph 250 (bullying is never tolerated), the school or college must be conscious of the rights of pupils and staff in relation to their religion or belief (or lack of belief) and must not compel or ceorce the use of opposite sex (or non-binary) pronouns. Schools and colleges supporting social transition must allow other pupils and staff who do not hold a belief in gender identity to consider options such as using names instead of pronouns. All pupils’ and staff’s beliefs (and lack of belief) should be respected, whereby they should never feel pressurised or compelled to speak in a way that does not reflect their own values.

Edited to add: I used the word "must" instead of "might" to cover the fact that non-believers need alternatives. Schools are legally obligated to follow the Nolan Principles, so "must" fits much better here than their woolly wording IMO.

271. The circumstances of a case and/or the needs of a child may change over time. For example, it may become known that there are safeguarding issues that were not previously apparent (including where a young child is ‘living in stealth’ - see below), or that a decision has placed an unsustainable pressure on a school or college's resources. In such cases, the school or college may need to review their original decision taking into account the factors set out above, including involving the child's parents. In deciding whether to review a decision, the school or college should involve their DSL immediately.

Thoughts: this is a bizarre paragraph. I’m not sure what point it is trying to make, paraphrasing to see if I’ve got it?

1. The needs of a child may change over time so keep reviewing the needs in partnership with parents/carers and responding to clinical advice.
2. If the school feels it can no longer support the social transition this decision should involve DSL and the child’s parents/carers.

If this is the case, it should say so. If I have misunderstood, it needs clarifying!

Good point - it's also encouraging schools to put the responsibility on children to deal with policy / implications rather than being an adult professional responsibility. No doubt added as they recognise this is an impossible circle to square so let's let the kids decide.

272. We expect that as well as revisiting decisions at appropriate points, schools and colleges will in particular want to consider whether previous decisions taken prior to this guidance coming into force remain appropriate, taking into account the impact of making any changes on the child in question and considering the principle above about involving parents.

Thoughts: Pussyfooting around again I’d say. I think this is trying to say that schools who have socially transitioned children already with or without informing parents must review their decision based on this new statutory process including involving parents.

This could be much clearer and directive rather making it a nice idea to think about maybe considering …

Can you tell I’m near the end and losing the will to live a little here?

Correct information
273. Having the correct information about a child is important in the context of schools and colleges fulfilling their safeguarding duties, and they should make sure all relevant staff are aware of a child’s biological sex in all cases. Schools and colleges are legally required to record a child’s biological sex accurately wherever it is recorded.

Thoughts: Yes! And this paragraph contradicts the fluff in para 258 about “living in stealth” elsewhere which says staff may not know the sex of the children they are teaching.

Children living in stealth
274. Schools and colleges should be particularly conscious of the vulnerabilities of children who have fully socially transitioned from an early age and may be living in stealth (that is, school or college friends/staff may be unaware of their biological sex). The Cass Review emphasised that these children are likely to approach puberty in a fearful and anxious state. Schools and colleges should involve the DSL in these cases.

Thoughts: The additional safeguarding risks of “living in stealth” would be better set out as part of para 258 above (and expanded to cover all the points raised by the Cass Review). The concept should be challenged as it is not possible to follow para 273 if children are truly stealth i.e. staff do not know the sex of the child. Keeping other children in ignorance of the sex of the child also poses safeguarding risks to other pupils.

What on earth does “fully socially transitioned” mean here?

Support for children who wish to detransition
275. There may be circumstances where a child wants to fully or partially reverse a request that has previously been agreed. The Cass Review highlighted the importance of maintaining flexibility and keeping options open for children who have socially transitioned and recommended that support should be provided to children who wish to de-transition. Schools and colleges should work closely with parents and relevant experts to ensure that children in this position are supported.

Thoughts: technically it would be wanting to desist rather than detransition as the term detransition is typically associated with medical transition.

What the heck are “relevant experts” in this context? I don’t like the sound of that at all

Given the evidence of high rates of desistence without social transition and the German study of insurance codes which suggested a detransition / desistence rate of 70%, I’d like to see this phrased more strongly. Something like:

“It is common for children questioning their gender to resolve their issues with their birth sex and want to reverse all or some aspects of their social transition. These children often do not want to make a big fuss or even acknowledge they are effectively changing their minds. The Cass Review highlighted the importance of maintaining flexibility and keeping options open and schools and colleges should work closely with parents and the child’s clinicians to ensure that children are supported and not trapped in their social transition.”

Some free form overarching thoughts:

• I think it needs an opening paragraph to provide a summary of the latest thinking / evidence that childhood transition is really not a good idea for the well-being of the child
• I think it should include some kind of obligation to signpost resources to parents who have been indoctrinated
• nowhere does it really say what social transition entails - from what is not allowed there is not much left other than names and pronouns but there isn't a paragraph on changing these (unless I missed it). If there was I would feedback that schools shouldn't be changing pronouns ever and likely not names either
• I've made lots of changes to suggest that schools only follow clinical advice but obviously this is v unlikely to happen (not least as the waiting lists are still so long it is not practicable) but if you were a DSL I'm not sure there's enough here on what you should do to support such a request (other than make damn sure the parents are involved)
• it doesn't tackle kids asking to change their name (i.e. not saying the full script, "I am questioning my gender and want to socially transition") and what schools should do about this - does this trigger informing parents for example?
• it doesn't include the wording from the last draft guidance that gender ideology is a contested idea (and highly political - although not sure that the last one said that either)
• it is fixated on "social transition" as opposed to working with children and their parents to help them feel comfortable at school. That could be all sorts of things
• I didn't notice it mentioning non-binary I don't think - not sure if that's good or bad
• Overall, it could be worse but it still has loopholes you could drive a truck through in relation to safeguarding gender questioning children

Thank you so much @Cantunseeit .
So many excellent points.

One point I'll be adding in here is the role of schools socially transitioning children "glueing" children in to a false identity. I recall the early guidelines from the paedophile adjacent Mermaids that primary schools should have an assembly for children claiming to be the opposite sex and celebrate the change with the whole school. Even then I knew that this ensured that a young child would never be able to change their mind.

I was researching to help a school deal with a child and I realised then that these issues were psychologically damaging, child unfriendly and age inappropriate. And led by people seeking to use children for their own ends.

We can still see some of that transactivist influence in these current guidelines and it's important that they're challenged in the ways you've suggested and replaced with child and education centred advice.