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?

Can you clarify exactly why you think the communal sink set-up is prohibited in the guidance please? It says a unisex toilet needs to be a completely enclosed room that opens into a public space, but it doesn’t contain the words ‘self-contained’ which would be the bit I would interpret to mean it needs a sink as well as a toilet.

It shouldn't, but it does. I suspect that's what both you and noblegiraffe are saying, but from different angles.

And yes, Gillick competence is definitely being tested too. As per Amaryllis' comment. Now that my daughter is 16, I've also found myself navigating these waters when it comes to professionals speaking to me about what my daughter (apparently) needs and should have access to. I won't derail but it's been (and remains) quite the journey, in both education and healthcare. Still going in the right direction overall though.

Why are you so insistent that I shouldn't critique the law? Women have been silenced over this for bloody decades which is why we're in this mess. I'm critiquing a massive safeguarding loophole in our laws.

I'm not Stonewall, I'm not making laws. I'm aware it's the interpretation of the law and I think it's wrong.

I'm a poster on Mumsnet expressing an informed opinion. You've made your point about the sanctity of the law and of course can be as tediously repetitive as you like. But you will not silence me from pointing out the bleeding obvious. We should not have a pc of gender reassignment that can applied to babies, toddlers or children unable to give informed consent.

It's a shame there isn't a mechanism for exploring how safeguarding legislation the protected characteristic of age as applied to children intersect with this dubious adult fantasy about children that's been wedged into the law.

Just double checked and it's the 22nd April

Apologies for the misinformation from me!

Thankfully it wasn't the kind that led anyone to remove body parts, so I think we're all good. But sorry you ended up wasting your time checking (again).

Because this is a thread about responding to a consultation on changes to KCSIE and responding to the consultation saying the law is wrong isn’t going to change anything as the guidelines have to exist within the law.

Would referring to Prevent in the consultation response as a potential approach here (as per my comment above) address this?

We don't need to provide the solution but signposting to it as an overall approach could be useful in this respect.

Even Axel Rudakabana didn't qualify for Prevent intervention because he wanted to kill people but not in an ideological way.

I guess a parent grooming their child into saying they want their bits chopped off might warrant a safeguarding concern, but the main source of grooming into transgender ideology isn't parents.

Thank you for sharing that Policy Exchange report. That was very hepful and readable! The report goes deeply into the different legal obligations that schools have, including (but not limited to) safeguarding, as well as the guidance at the time, and evidence that some schools and local authorities have policies that break their legal obligations.

Thought I'd cut and paste their list of 9 recommendations:

1. In line with mandatory safeguarding guidance and the law, parents should automatically be informed when a child discloses feelings of gender distress at school, unless there is a compelling reason for them not to be informed. Parents must be central to any further decision making regarding the handling of a child’s gender distress, including social transition or change of name.

2. No school should facilitate a child’s social transition (the medical intervention in which a child adopts the social and cultural attributes associated with the opposite sex), unless medical advice clearly endorses this as the best and most appropriate action, and unless parents have been fully involved. Where this situation arises, schools should co-operate fully with relevant external agencies within their local authority.

3. Schools should be required to publish all Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) material online, and have a clear process in place for parents to raise any concerns. Parents should be given an absolute right to see all RSHE materials their child will be taught at school. If it is not published online, it must be provided to parents on request, without any requirement for the parent to come on to the school premises. All agencies that provide materials to state-funded schools must accept that materials may be provided to parents in this way.

4. The Government must urgently commission an indepent review of the teaching of RSHE materials and approach to gender distressed children in schools, with a focus on safeguarding. The review must be independent and not carried out by the Department for Education (DfE) which has been too closely involved in the development of the current situation.

5. In line with the law and current guidance, certain activities and facilities should be single sex. This relates to toilets, changing rooms and sports of a competitive nature. There should be no exceptions to this.

6. The DfE should update Keeping Children Safe in Education to explicitly address issues relating to children with gender distress and gender dysphoria, emphasising the importance of parental involvement in a child’s life. The document’s statement that LGBT is not a safeguarding issue needs to be removed, given the additional vulnerabilities of the current cohort presenting with gender distress.

7. The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) must routinely consider schools’ approach to gender-distressed children as part of its inspection of safeguarding protocols. A school’s failure to meet the appropriate standard should be reflected in the grade Ofsted awards the school, and treated with the same seriousness as other safeguarding failures.

8. The DfE should issue guidance on what is not appropriate for schools to be teaching children in RSHE at different stages of a child’s education. Gender stereotypes must be effectively challenged in schools, without conflating beliefs about gender identity with sex. Discussion about gender-critical beliefs should be included.

9. No state-funded school should subscribe to diversity membership schemes offered by external agencies where such organisations are involved in political campaigning. In accordance with the law, subscription to such schemes constitutes a fundamental conflict of interest. This does not prevent schools from purchasing or using external resources where no conflict arises.

Many posts on this thread cover general issues than the specific words that will be used on any consultation form. It's important to explore issues, especially if they're contributing to safeguarding fails. As a teacher I'd have thought you'd be comfortable with discussions that open up subjects rather than closing them down?

Re Prevent @BonfireLady. I don't think there's any harm in anyone raising the issue - after all, it's not as if we need to reach a consensus for an agreed Mumsnet response 😁. The KCSIE consultation is lengthy as there are all sorts of new issues being introduced. As a teacher with many decades of experience, many of them in safeguarding in schools, it's been a pleasure to read so much of the more joined up thinking with the new proposals.

Of course this area will be far more difficult as it's an adult ideology that's been imposed on children. There's limited data, massive convoluted ideological nonsense, online influence and some very dangerous adults pushing this at children with, as pointed out earlier, the DfE & Ofsted failing at an early stage to intervene and safeguard children. But - we are where we are.

Thank you for this. It's interesting to see that a number of these issues are now partially, if not completely, reflected in KCSIE and the update RSHE guidelines.

I'm not sure how much schools understand the conflict of interest implicit in signing up to diversity schemes (point 9)
It's been implicit and explicit in the guidelines on political impartiality in schools for years. Sadly too many schools have ignored them - unsurprising given that these organisations have been encouraged and funded by the DfE in the past.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/political-impartiality-in-schools/political-impartiality-in-schools

As a teacher I'd have thought you'd be comfortable with discussions that open up subjects rather than closing them down?

As a teacher I’m quite keen on facts. People pushing back on my saying that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment can apply to children and that this is a massive problem when it comes to writing this guidance doesn’t change that fact.

I replied to you before with the reasons as relates to building standards at the time. I am at work at the moment so this is a cut-and-paste which I hope answers your query.

Firstly, the 1992 legislation that is the one with clause 20 that everyone quotes doesn’t apply to schoolchildren. The Department for Education told me that educational establishments are exempt. However, it does appear to apply to staff. Thats why schools are useful to study design-wise as they have been allowed to get away with designs that would be against legislation and building standards elsewhere. It’s like a big experiment in what happens when you let everything become mixed sex. And completely private designs (well a 5mm gap) have not been risk assessed and equality impact assessments have not been done.

This is from the Department for Education:
“The department does not routinely collect or collate data regarding reports of deaths, sexual assaults and rapes where the location is 'toilet’ in school and college environments. Therefore, collating the information, you requested would entail numerous
teams and individuals in the department carrying out searches from multiple systems using multiple search terms. Any information found would then need to be assessed, categorised and collated. I have considered ways in which your request might be narrowed or limited in order to reduce the cost of complying with it. However, due to the nature and breadth of your request and the way in which information is held, I do not consider that the department would be able to provide the information you have requested without exceeding the cost limit even if you narrowed the period of time”.

The Department have implemented mixed sex private cubicles with mixed sex sink areas and do not hold risk assessments or equality impact assessments for these private cubicle designs in their department (last years FOI). I have collated examples of deaths, sexual assaults, voyeurism in school toilets and design is really important for safeguarding, which should be about prevention.

A room was (is?) not technically, in design terms, a cubicle. Cubicles are within rooms as far as the 1992 legislation goes and stands at the time. There’s now specific criteria to fulfil in any toilet refurbishment or new build to satisfy building regulations which is in ‘Document T’ for England and easily accessible compared to the BS6465 (parts 1-4) which cost ££££. The Health and Safety Executive confirmed that, for Doc T, only toilets cubicles leading out onto a single sex area can have door gaps. Have a look at Document T. If schools are following standards, that’s what document T is based on.

This is the 1992 legislation:

<strong>20.</strong>—(1) Suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences shall be provided at readily accessible places.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), sanitary conveniences shall not be suitable unless—

(a)the rooms containing them are adequately ventilated and lit;
(b)they and the rooms containing them are kept in a clean and orderly condition; and
(c)separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.

By the way, you should easily be able to get into any non-domestic toilet cubicle from the outside and because of the real risk of people collapsing against the door, there should be away of getting in by removing the door or making it swing outwards. That is in all building regulations across the UK. And in school designs. So you have defibrillators in every school and a way of getting to a child but no way of knowing they have collapsed, which is a vital first step to rescue. A door gap is also useful for the occupant to give them some warning the door is about to open because that vital safety feature is misused by men on women.

If no one knows what’s going on in toilets, how do you design the safest design? If you are to design-out crime you need to know what designs are worst. As an ex-teacher I was shocked that so many rapes are reported in school premises. Where are these happening? From various sources it’s store cupboards and toilets ie private places.

I feel sorry for schools. They have used the guidance from the Department of Education on toilet designs, which implied you could have all unisex provision until 2025, but it’s the school’s responsibility if a child comes to harm in a toilet.

Health and safety should be paramount in non-domestic design but so much time and money goes into arguing who has right of access and bodging designs to compromise.

The Policy Exchange report is good on the ways that Gender Reassignment under EqAct2010 doesn't apply to children in schools. It doesn't mean that children don't legally have that protected characteristic, just that the EqAct2010 doesn't give them the rights that some schools and local authorities imagine. For example one school said that "in line with the EqAct2010" they should not tell parents about a child being trans without the child's consent. But the EqAct2010 doesn't say this. Another school claimed it would be a breach of Data Protection but it's not because child safeguarding trumps a lot of other legislation.

The report may be wrong about these legalities but it seems pretty thorough.

It is thorough. It exemplifies the whole problem with this. That organisations and individuals have confidently issued made up policy and demands to schools based on their niche political ideology and that's led some schools to overreach in ways we would never do with other aspects of safeguarding. Anyone involved in safeguarding knows that certain incidents or issues can result in endless discussions of thresholds, the law, intent between professionals.

Transactivism started from a position of "no debate" and that's been catastrophic in de skilling adults who in other circumstances understand the challenges and complexities of keeping children with eating disorders, self harm, suicidal ideation etc safe. In relation to this vulnerable cohort too many schools have adopted "affirm at all costs" and are now having to scrabble to unpick how to manage this.

Even Axel Rudakabana didn't qualify for Prevent intervention because he wanted to kill people but not in an ideological way.

It was a Prevent-style approach I was alluding to, re dealing with radicalisation. But you're right that it wouldn't catch everyone.

but the main source of grooming into transgender ideology isn't parents.

Sadly in some cases they are the main source. However, even if they aren't the original source, they have a unique role in grooming enablement (even if it's completely unintended and comes from a Be Kind not nefarious place) because it's the parents approval of social transition that unlocks the door for schools to socially transition a child. Instead of raising a flag (as any other form of parent-sponsored radicalisation into a belief that can lead to harm would hopefully do), it becomes a way for the school to pass over its liability. Yes, parental responsibility should top trump state involvement, but not if that parent is leading a vulnerable child towards harm. So it all depends what is meant by a "main source of grooming". It's certainly the most powerful part of the grooming engine when it comes to impact on a vulnerable child. Hopefully this post fits within MN guidelines. To add clarity (and maybe raise the chance that it does 🤞🤞) I'm referring to grooming in the sense of grooming into a belief system, where that belief system urges believers to irreversibly modifiy their bodies to match a declared belief in a gender identity (where this supposed "gender identity" differs from the person's sex).

Transactivism started from a position of "no debate" and that's been catastrophic in de skilling adults who in other circumstances understand the challenges and complexities of keeping children with eating disorders, self harm, suicidal ideation etc safe. In relation to this vulnerable cohort too many schools have adopted "affirm at all costs" and are now having to scrabble to unpick how to manage this.

This ⬆️⬆️⬆️

Edited to add:

Far too many have lost the ability to spot what is harmful and what is not. Everything has been turned on its head in that respect, with non-affirming (or in my case neutrality-advocating**) parents of genuinely distressed children managed as if they are harming those children.

** my daughter never actively identified as a boy, she just wasn't sure she was a girl. She needed all supporting agencies and the school to keep her firmly rooted in reality while also allowing her to explore her feelings and confusion.

I'd hazard a guess that there are many parents flailing around in the dark with this stuff, just as schools have been. So if a parent is told by their child that they think they're trans, the parent might google for advice and find the NSPCC website which says 'immediately socially transition your child by using their preferred name and pronouns and ask the child if they want the parent to ask the school to do this too'.

Parents are being groomed too, tbh, into instantly affirming and letting the child take the lead.

Incidentally, the new KCSIE guidance says that children who 'confide' in a staff member that they think they're trans don't have to be reported to parents, despite the safeguarding implications. The contacting parents bit only kicks in if the child asks the school to socially transition them.

Incidentally, the new KCSIE guidance says that children who 'confide' in a staff member that they think they're trans don't have to be reported to parents, despite the safeguarding implications. The contacting parents bit only kicks in if the child asks the school to socially transition them.

Yes, this is a MAJOR issue. It's mentioned already in the thread (by me and others) but it's so bad that it's worth saying it again. It's a TRA's dream: get the child to the point where social transition is a done deal, and then coerce the parents to agree whilst informing them <Lots of sympathetic noises, it's difficult, let's take this one step at a time, you're doing the right thing supporting their identity, so many other parents aren't as supportive as you etc etc>

Schools don't need to coerce the parents into anything, the parents can just google respected UK institutions and read and follow their advice. Or even just watch TV.

Incidentally, did you ever think that you might be doing the wrong thing, given that everything is geared up to point your kid in the trans direction? (Genuine question, no need to answer).

Maybe this is a derail but I find it tricky to nail down exactly where the safeguarding issues are. Are they different for sexual orientation and gender identity.

Is it a safeguarding issue if a teenager says he's gay - I guess not? So is it a safeguarding issue if a child says he says he is trans? That in itself sounds more like a mental health issue than saying he's gay does. It's potentially a dysphoria whereas gay is a normal variation.

It's presumably a safeguarding issue if a teenage boy says he's having gay sex (or any sex really)? And is there a safeguarding issue when a boy wears a skirt to school (just gender non-conforming? or is that social transition?) Or wants to change his name and pronouns (social transition and affects everyone else)? Or when a girl wears a binder (physical health issue, maybe self-harm)?

Sorry if this is a derail. But safeguarding seems like one of the areas where conflating "LGB" and "T" really causes a problem.

The draft guidance separates them out.

Gay kids might be bullied for being gay. Trans kids may have complex mental health issues.

If a kid says that they're trans, there's probably a lot going on there.

It doesn't explicitly say that a kid saying they're trans is probably a symptom of other stuff, but it basically is.

Thanks, that is reassuring. So I guess we can approve those bits.😀

Those are really good questions. That's what I was referring to above when I said this has deskilled teachers. Safeguarding leads, pastoral leads are used to evaluating what's been disclosed about a child and working out whether this is a safeguarding issue? a mental health? family crisis etc and where necessary speaking to the professional network. What do we know? Does this cross a threshold? Is this child being abused? Is so what..?

But this has been presented to schools by adults pushing their ideology in a framework of #nodebate. This 6 year old is trans if he says he is. Affirm or else.

It should never have happened and the damage to vulnerable children is immense. But now we've got to unravel all this and reinstate safeguarding for all children.

@noblegiraffe

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/design-standards-employers-requirements

Right, ploughed through these for you (and me) to get the new relevant toilet sections. I have had a busy day so the pattern book with its pretty boxes is a bit too abstract for me but, as a maths teacher, you may like them - it looks like corridors to the toilet ‘suites’ are involved. It’s worth noting that toilet facilities you mentioned probably includes the sink. In general terms used by the HSE ‘sanitary conveniences’ is the toilet, ‘sanitary facilities’ includes the sink. I can’t find a definition of toilet facilities. AI reckons it includes the sink in a washroom. All of this, I believe, is still guidance though it’s interesting that building standard bs6465 has made an appearance. I always think the ‘requirements’ title sounds like it’s statutory.

These bits are relevant I think:

5.1.24 Sanitary product dispensing machines
• Extent: Minimum one machine per female toilet suite, or as specified in the Project Brief, for use from and including KS2 onwards (may be supplied by a service provider to School/College)
• Location: In common areas used only by females, not in an individual cubicle/room and not visible from circulation areas
• Mounting height (to underside): 850-1000mm
5.1.25 Sanitary product disposal bins
• Extent: One for every female toilet cubicle or universal toilet room, or as specified in the Project Brief, for use from and including KS2 onwards (may be supplied by a service provider to School/College)
• Location: On the floor adjacent to the toilet pan

3.22 Personal care (PCS)
Table of toilets ratios for pupils and students
Note: In male toilets, for Post 16 only (including FE/colleges),
urinals can be provided with the following ratio: 1.5 urinals for every WC pan replaced. Where selected, at least 40% of facilities shall be provided as WC pans.
In schools, in separate toilets for boys and girls, at least one toilet is provided in accommodation for use by ambulant disabled pupils.
In schools, in separate toilets for boys and girls, where there are four or more toilets, one of these is an enlarged toilet for use by pupils who need extra space, in addition to any other provision.
*On each floor of any school block there shall be a standalone toilet facility provided in a room that can be secured from the inside and is intended for use by one pupil at a time.
Where there are four or more toilet rooms in a cluster, one of these is to be enlarged for use by pupils who need extra space. In each group of toilets for Reception and Nursery pupils there shall be one wider cubicle to allow staff to give assistance.

my note: this used to be called gender neutral but is not anymore.

Glossary

Cubicle - A ventilated compartment, not self-contained, usually formed by the assembly of partition panels and located within a room.

Suite(s) - Collection(s) of Spaces and Clusters that need proximity or close relationship to function, for example, administration spaces, dining and kitchens, Primary classrooms and activity rooms.

This is taken from:
Pattern Book: 3.7 Primary classrooms; 3.22 Personal care
Technical Manual: 2.7 Internal walls and partitions; 2.8 Internal doors and glazed screens; 5.1 Sanitaryware and ancillaries