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?

Please would you explain how they have this? Would this mean they are affirmed as having changed their gender by a doctor?

It seems a dangerous pathway to be so definite about a child already having the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment before they’ve even grown up.

I think so (IANAL). The problem is every parent who's been faced with a school doing this has pulled away from taking them to court because of course in the centre, is their beloved vulnerable child who is not going to benefit from a court case with the school. So there's no case law. And that's why this has been able to continue imho.

If you work with looked after children you have to navigate getting parental consent for a school trip. If you sit in a safeguarding conference having to tell the participants - including parents - what a child has said in school about their abusive / neglectful home life you learn the principle is that if people keep secrets from parents, they're both unable to safeguard their own children or to make changes to keep children safe it they are the problem.

Safeguarding relies on transparency. Although I must add that there will be certain cases where confidentiality is maintained for fear of contaminating a court case. But that's the exception.

Also picking up your point about the pc of gender reassignment for children. i don't believe for a split second that it was ever thought that children below the age of consent should be included in this . 4 & 5 year olds? 9 year olds? 11 year olds? This is another fake fact that you hear all the men running the trans lobby organisations pontificating about.
Again - it's never been tested in the courts which leaves the space open for those determined to transition other people's children to push their anti safeguarding demands.

This is why getting the trans guidance for schools has taken so bloody long. All the protected characteristic of gender reassignment requires is the proposal of the intention to transition. That's it, nothing medical, you don't even need to have started transition.

And children can acquire this protected characteristic in the same way as adults.

Re the lack of explanation of what GI is... Is it possible to ask, if a child questions their gender and wants to know how they would feel if they were a boy, compared with how they would feel if they were a girl (as male or female body is not an aspect of gender), would they get a straight, objective answer as to what differentiates one from the other?

I think the vague, "whatever you feel like" does nothing to help clarify things for children, especially those who are ND or who need clear definitions to understand.

Guidance is surely needed about how staff can help kids navigate what it is to be a boy or girl, when the experts refuse to tell them, or when they rely on gender stereotypes.

Thank you for answering @noblegiraffe

Then I think it is impossible to protect children from affirmation seeing as Having a Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment is already an affirmed state of being. It is not neutral.

i.e. It is not the same as “questioning their gender and possibly going to decide to have gender reassignment one day”.

Gender Reassignment should not be possible for children.

Whilst they may not physically read part two, everything in it should be disseminated via polices, which all staff should also read, and training which all staff should attend. It’s up to slt / safeguarding leads to make sure that the key knowledge is transferred and policies are implemented, understood and followed.

Otherwise it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

My specific concern with this, as Amanda Speilman pointed out on the today programme last week, is that there must be firm safeguards around the DSL/s and their decisions. Agree MUST be multi agency.

There unfortunately have been one too many incidents of DSLs being convicted of sexual offences against children and all it takes if for a DSL or DSLs to be fully signed up member/s of gender ideology for bias in decisions around this to occur.

I didn’t fully finish a reply to Noble on a different thread around this and agree that any “coaching” of what to say would’ve gross professional conduct. Coaching would more likely come from online sources. At the same time, nuanced bias can occur with a policy such as this, especially in some schools (side eyes brighton) in some areas (side eyes Brighton) where the multi agency backdrop is likely to be generally more biased across more services. Which is what I feel Amanda was alluding to.

Some dsl examples:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-68716990?app-referrer=deep-link

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/assistant-head-teacher-cornwall-fired-36777450

https://x.com/nca_uk/status/1722281513750786404?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

And a head; I’m not sure it was the DSL but heads usually are:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy12q2711eo?app-referrer=deep-link

Agreed. I've always been a DSL along with another colleague - precisely because some situations are so complex that you need another "trained eye / ear". (Let alone the notion of a DSL as a predator).

There's also still a worry about the queer theory groups who are desperate to maintain their hold on schools and are still recommended to schools by organisations. Some of their "offers" to schools would certainly encompass "coaching" and it could be argued that some of it moves into grooming children.

The Surrey Pride paedophile Stephen Ireland (now imprisoned for multiple child sex offences) was in a local secondary school shortly before his arrest. He was a patron of the now closed Educate & Celebrate who had a known flasher boast of talking to primary children about sex and identity. Ireland was enabled by the local authority and police for years - see Julie Bindel's account:

https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/pride-and-predator-the-scandal-of

Mermaids have a grim history of employing porn advocates & paedophile adjacent trustees.

LGBT Youth Scotland have a horrendous history of convicted paedophiles amongst adults working there.

Gendered Intelligence offers "mentoring" from trans etc adults to gender confused school children (only £100 an hour) along with the safeguarding busting notion of running "youth groups" for 8 - 25 year olds!

https://genderedintelligence.co.uk/services/68-mentoring-in-education

Although I think direct links to these groups may have been removed from KCSIE & the RSE / Health Ed guidance, the DfE's guidance on the Equality Act still refers schools to Gendered Intelligence, GIRES & Stonewall. There's also this little section which explains why schools lacking time and / or in critical thinking, can be conned into using inappropriate policies written by adult queer theory lobby groups.

"......information from groups such as Stonewall or GIRES about the experience of gay or trans pupils in schools generally may help schools to understand how best to support their own LGBT pupils. Such information (or links to/extracts from it) may be included among a school’s published material"

para 5.22 - link below.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e3237ed915d74e33f0ac9/Equality_Act_Advice_Final.pdf

Schools need clear advice that the experiences and personal wishes of trans adults from lobby groups or as individuals do not constitute expert advice about children.

This is all very concerning.

It’s up to slt / safeguarding leads to make sure that the key knowledge is transferred and policies are implemented, understood and followed.

Otherwise it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Indeed.

I appreciate not all schools will behave like this, but I've experienced some interesting gatekeeping at this senior level to say the very least.

In fact, when I (politely, slowly, collaboratively etc) asked the school to do the knowledge transfer from the current KCSIE guidance etc, the harder they pushed back. We're now at an impasse and unfortunately I have to sit back and watch the impact of the school's behaviour on children at the school. Thankfully, I've been able to speak to key members of staff so that the impact on my own vulnerable daughter has been mitigated as much as possible. One of the reasons for keeping her where she is is that I've been making headway on that front - in many ways it's easier to stay put where I can clearly see what's going on there... and, almost more importantly, by whom.

When I say sit back and watch, I really did try to get them to see sense. Here's an excerpt from my attempt, going above the SLT/DSL, relating to this particular issue re gatekeeping:

From the behaviour of the staff throughout the school, it is clear that they have not been informed by the DSL (or head) about the key safeguarding issues relating to social transition. Although there is no statutory requirement for DSLs to train staff on part 2 of KCSIE, this means that any staff who may otherwise want to follow this statutory guidance are highly unlikely to be aware that.. it should be followed....

Even if the school has sent information out to staff about the existence of paragraphs 204-208 in this guidance (and the associated Cass Report), it is highly unlikely that this will have been framed in a way that makes it clear to them why sharing a personal belief in gender identity with vulnerable children could lead such children towards harm. This puts staff at risk of contravening Teaching Standards and of future legal challenge, if a child goes on to transition medically (as a result of being coerced to hold this belief while at [school]) then subsequently detransitions.

It's a wild west safeguarding-wise, when it comes to gender identity. Staff are allowed free reign to perform their allyship/activism re preferred pronouns and everyone is continuously keeping check on each other to make sure that they are being "kind". All championed from the top down. Consequently, safeguarding and clear boundary setting around biology and the law is in the bin. DSLs and SLTs are the key to how well (or not) statutory guidance is implemented. Backed up (or not) by governors of course.

Re the last part of my excerpt, I'm not sure who would actually be legally on the hook TBH. Probably the DSL, head and governors for failing to adequately train staff - rather than the staff themselves. But it's certainly an interesting question... and I think we're going to see a lot of legal cases in future against schools who actively maintained the pipeline to the gender clinics.

The fallout from this scandal will be huge in the future - in education as well as healthcare. Sadly, lots of children will have been harmed in the meantime.

It's really so incredibly sad and wrong that parents and children end up in this situation. DSLs who don't safeguard properly need to be removed from that job, and yet.....

I do think a lot of harm has come from DSLs - they are in the position of power here.

I hope we see more court cases, but it's a huge ask for parents.

I’m so sorry you’ve had such a battle and yes, it’s concerning that there’s a gap between the part two and staff on the chalk face/ Wild West of approaches to GI.

Ofsted would see the blame being laid with the head. I don’t know about legalities. Heads can be sued. Heads are usually DSLs; not sure if can be different in MATs

I have similar experience to BonfireLady with mitigation in place to protect my DD via DSL/Head (until lack of governance collapsed it all but that’s another story) but rest of staff were clueless.

DSL even told me once that unlike himself and the Head (who I’d escalated to via complaints process), the Head of Sixth Form didn’t know anything about the topic/ risks. This was two years on from my initial meeting with the school so plenty of time for staff training to have happened.

My greatest achievement was not saying “are you fucking insane?” out loud to DD’s HoY in the initial meeting I’d asked for to raise as a safeguarding the apparent social contagion in DD’s year group (10 out of approximately 90 girls with trans identities that I was aware of). She even agreed that she’d support 10 girls having a leg amputated if it was hurting them (in response to me posing that as an analogous situation)

My point in relation to this guidance is that teachers are in no way qualified to be supporting any child’s social transition. Those that are keen to do so should be told clearly that they cannot and those that don’t want to should not be asked to do so.

Surely a unisex school uniform policy and ability for a child to change their name only with parental consent should cover all bases? No pronoun changes. sex-based data collection and single sex changing and toilets with third spaces for any child that needs it.

Any child truly so at risk from their parents that their wellbeing cannot be discussed with school should clearly be referred to SS

In situations where the head and DSL are two different people, I can well imagine them each providing air cover for the other... along with everyone else in the Pass The (Accountability) Parcel game....

Head: yes I'm accountable for the school but I the DSL is responsible for safeguarding and it's important that I don't interfere with that

DSL: I had the full support of the leadership team in this difficult and nuanced situation. We needed more guidance from the DfE and took legal advice on how to proceed.

Governors/MAT boards: we are satisfied that the school followed the right steps by following guidance and taking legal advice

Lawyers: the school is responsible for how it chooses to act on legal advice

DfE: the school/LA is accountable responsible for its decisions.

Etc etc. Nobody ever has to open the parcel and say "it was me!".

I do think a lot of harm has come from DSLs - they are in the position of power here.

This.

I hope we see more court cases, but it's a huge ask for parents.

Yes. IANAL but as I understand it, parents will only have standing to sue if their child has come to some kind of harm. Proving that in a school environment will be harder than in a healthcare setting. But I would like to think that a public enquiry will expose the rot in school leadership teams in the future. That won't stop children being harmed in the meantime though 😞

Bloody hell. The teacher said that they'd support 10 girls having their leg amputated? Their healthy leg? Not fit to be a teacher!

What does she do if a child says it really, really hurts them and makes them specially sad if she doesn't give them an A (or whatever number grade, I'm old school) even though they don't bother to try that hard and their actual work is only a D grade? And how does she mitigate the hurt it creates for the hardworking A-grade students that the grade inflation erases their achievements?

Surely a unisex school uniform policy and ability for a child to change their name only with parental consent should cover all bases? No pronoun changes. sex-based data collection and single sex changing and toilets with third spaces for any child that needs it. This is obviously really the only sensible solution. Pretending to a child they can in any way change sex is clear emotional abuse.

This is why we're going to need court cases. People need to see they really can be accountable.

It's one of the major failings in safeguarding law and structures in general that there is no real advantage to safeguarding well. Most of the examples in safeguarding training where people have spoken up / whistleblown in recent training I've done is where those people have nothing to lose - no social ostracization, no job to lose.

There is no accountability for failing to safeguard so people can just pretend they're doing it whilst not actually bothering when it gets hard, which really good safeguarding will quite often be.

Wow @Cantunseeit that's quite the experience with the bonkers (and clearly unfit to be there) teacher!!

(It sounds like you had the head and DSL being the sensible ones, whereas I have the opposite)

I think that the instruction to staff not to change pronouns/name for a kid merely on their say-so needs to be in Part 1. It's such a massive change of culture from what has happened previously in schools (and indeed from what staff have been encouraged to do) that it needs to be an explicit instruction. If it is truly considered a safeguarding issue for school staff to socially transition a student, even as an individual teacher, then there needs to be a guarantee from the DfE that all staff are required to have read it, and signed the form to say that they have read it.

Fantastic point.

Very much agree. And it needs to be clear. It can't be endlessly waffly and obscure.

I don't understand why they won't say what social transition is (well I do, it's because TRAs might have a tantrum). Really all social transition can ever be is pretending a child is the opposite sex to the one they really are (and sometimes also trying to coerce others into pretending this). They don't want to say it clearly because when you realise this is it, it becomes absolutely obvious why it would be a safeguarding failure for a teacher to do this.

You'd think they could find a few English teachers to make sure it's clear and concise.

Completely agree @noblegiraffe

Apologies everyone, busy trying to get my own statement into shape and have not had the brain to look at this. I think there is enough agreement that this update cannot go out as is and would have serious issues if it did?

Any more suggestions about how to organise the thing itself?

Would it be an idea to come up with some suggested bullet points for responses to the questions from the perspective of parents wanting to safeguard their children?

We know that the activist groups desperate to erode children's boundaries / promote parental alienation are all over this and it's really important that parents voices are finally heard. For too long strangers have been allowed to impose this adult ideology on children. Although the draft is a a good start, there are some gaping holes that will still allow transactivists to inappropriately dabble in vulnerable children's lives and we need to highlight this.

Right. Finished the statement. With luck maybe one day I can anonymise it and share it here for a laugh.

Anyway. TO business.

Bullet points Yes definitely

I am personally really worried about the pronouns coming in by the back door and parental authority being over ruled or not even considered. But To be honest I don’t think schools should allow changes of pronouns at all. It’s just lying

I don’t think here is very long to get these responses in now either