Still Asleep at the Wheel: A Further Examination of Gender and Safeguarding in Schools - Policy Exchange

[IwantToRetire]

A new report by Policy Exchange reveals that secondary schools in England are still heavily influenced by gender ideology. Too many secondary schools are socially transitioning gender-distressed children without reliably informing parents, failing to adhere to their safeguarding responsibilities and compromising the rights and interests of other children in school.

The report includes FOI research assessing schools’ policies, replicating an identical round of FOI research carried out for Asleep at the Wheel: An Examination of Gender and Safeguarding in Schools in 2023.

Despite some progress, particularly regarding the provision of single-sex toilets and changing rooms, we found that many schools still lack adequate policies. In a minority of schools, it appears that contested beliefs about gender identity remain embedded: staff support children to begin a social transition in the school environment and teach contested ideas as fact. In other schools, staff are failing to uphold their safeguarding duties, as they do not reliably involve parents, the Designated Safeguarding Lead, or a medical professional. The interests of other children are often compromised, as all children are required adopt a transitioning child’s new name and pronouns.

Moreover, many schools permit a child to self-identify as a different gender and participate in sports activities with opposite sex. We found that:

• 70% and 73% of schools maintain single-sex toilets and changing rooms.
• 43% of secondary schools reliably inform parents when a child discloses feelings of gender distress.
• 58% of schools reliably involve a safeguarding lead or medical professional in these cases.

More than one third of schools do not maintain single-sex sports.
The report calls for the Government to amend the draft statutory guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026, on which it is currently consulting.

As Baroness Falkner of Margravine, former Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said in her Foreword to the report:

“Schools require greater clarity and authoritative guidance, consistently enforced. They carry a significant responsibility and must be supported to understand how to discharge their duties lawfully, consistently, and with confidence.”

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/still-asleep-at-the-wheel/

I’m glad to hear that gender ideology is dying out in your school. It was always very lacklustre in our school - big farming area thankfully.

A few years ago there were lots of schools and teachers reporting significant numbers of ‘trans’ identifying kids, especially in clusters like Brighton etc It would be fascinating to know what the numbers are now.

Yes I have. It might put the child at risk of harm. Some people just don't think that is a priority. I think it's more of a priority. It's a difference of opinion. We are allowed those.

No, I think they should have some sort of inschool counselling. We had this sort of thing and it was confidential from our parents unless we disclosed abuse. I spoke to one a lot about my sexuality, including sex with people above the age of consent while I was below the age of consent. It was handled confidentially and in a way I was able to recognise where I was being exploited.

I would have never had that relationship with the counsellor had I not been guaranteed that privacy.

Most people don't agree with every single view and policy of the political party they ultimately vote for. This goes even more so for minority and oppressed groups. We do not get that luxury. We have to go with who will keep us alive or at least be bothered by our death. Even if they do some shit we don't really like or even directly oppose.

Do you understand how safeguarding works? It is first and foremost designed to protect the child from harm, but it is also designed to protect adults at the school from the accusation of harm. Adults should never be doing things with or to children and keeping it a secret from the people who have parental responsibility for the child.

As I have said before, if the school believes that the act of informing parents (that their child is being affirmed at school in the wrong sex) would put the child in danger of harm, they should NOT keep it a secret! The fact that the school is worried that the child could come to harm if a fact of the child’s life became known to their parents means that the school must inform social services. The school cannot simply affirm and stay quiet. That would be a safeguarding failure.

And just to make it completely clear: It would be a safeguarding failure because if the parents found out via some other route than the school, and they ended up harming the child, and it was later found out that the school not only knew about it, but went along with it and informed no one, including not passing on their concerns to social services, then the school would be in very, very deep shit.

I know what you think. I disagree. I think it should be decided on a case by case basis. We are alloeed to have a difference of opinion. Women are allowed those.

Women are allowed to have different opinions.

As a rule safeguarding policies have to be consistent and always used to avoid loopholes which are exploit or cracks through which children fall.

Safeguarding policy is not a matter of opinion.

If a child is talking about transitioning parents SHOULD be told. If this puts a child at potential risk, SS should be involved.

No exceptions.

To do differently is a safeguarding fail.

No i dont think parents should always be told if risk is elevated. I know you think it should be that way. I am glad it is not.

I don’t think @GlovedhandsCecilia really cares about child safety. I think they just care about grandstanding.

If they cared, they would understand that if you suspect that telling a parent about something a child has told you would put the child in danger, then the child is already in danger.

Because that information the child shared will not stay secret - it will get back to the parents by some other means, and harm will be done.

And you, as an adult will have had the chance to stop it by involving social services when the child told you and you will not have - because you felt keeping the secret was more important than the actual safety of the child. So the harm to the child will not only happen anyway, but it will happen and it will be in part your fault.

That is why safeguarding exists. To stop harm before it happens. If you cannot see that, I hope to gods you are not involved in the care of children.

That was not the entirety of what RTB said though. You’re missing the bit where she said if there were genuine concerns that telling the parents would result in parental harm to the child, then SS should be told.

Would you agree with that?

I dont think that's the best way to safeguard children in every situation like this.

Not in every single case. Sometimes there are other, better ways to support the child until they age out of having to be at home. I know a lot of the young people in this situation won't disclose the risk of harm because they know it could result in SS being involved and they don't think that is the appropriate or even best thing for them.

It's the right thing to do a lot of the time. Not every time.

But who gets to decide @GlovedhandsCecilia which time is right vs not right?

It may well be that you are extremely knowledgeable about the whole range of transitioning or gender questioning youth issues including the Cass report, Finnish studies, the known side effects of CSHs etc and that you’d never counsel a student that you didn’t know extremely well.

However, I doubt every single teacher does know the subject or the student. That raises questions about the risks, including safeguarding risks, of leaving important decisions solely to teacher and child. And in almost every other case, we’d never advocate for a teacher to tell a student ‘this is a secret’ so why does gender ideology get a pass here?

One issue that's repeatedly highlighted in Serious Case Reviews / Safeguarding Practice Reviews is the catastrophic impact of individuals or organisations deciding that they know better than our extensive statutory safeguarding advice and guidance. The failure to share relevant information with other agencies (and occasionally within an institution) regularly leads to child deaths and extended abuse with opportunities being missed to safeguard a child because individuals decide they know better than decades of evidence and statutory advice.

Of course on an internet forum everyone is entitled to their opinion. Fortunately safeguarding is not based on random opinions - even when they offer legitimate concerns about children's fear of disclosing because of SS involvement. Adults who work with children are trained to be aware of this and to understand that ignoring guidance leaves children at risk and without support.
The range of in depth case reviews regularly evidences how those who ignore safeguarding guidelines are often directly responsible when children are not safeguarded from harm.

Agree that that would be be a Cpoms niggle so that the senior leaders, pastoral and designated safeguarding lead would also see it. If they had further concerns (ideally) they’d be able to make a judgement on what to do next and at what point to inform parents.

This is where it will be very muddy in the guidelines. Some staff wouldn’t cpom that. Schools are likely to have to come up with their own policies here. Schools that are TRA ish may be more problematic than others.

This is where there will certainly be more cases that end up having to go through the courts. Blind eyes will be turned.

Cpoms are evidence and can and are used in legal cases. It’s also very helpful to read back through cpom history to get an idea about what a child has experienced over their school years. We now have Cpom histories that go back to nursery. Conversations with parents both email and verbal are recorded- they must be able to be held up on a court of law so must be accurate records and not conjecture.

Teachers and SLT have a duty of care. The safeguarding policies are designed for the child and the staff - the Head could be sued so has a responsibility to make sure policy is enforced throughout schools.

Parents can ask for a copy of the Cpoms record at any point iirc.

“Why was I not told of this” will undoubtedly be a phrase uttered by parents in some areas in the years to come.

I think school staff (including pastoral care) generally have the experience and education to make that decision.

I also know why these systems often dont work effectively for people from certain backgrounds and that is why we have specific organisations that better serve us and understand the nuances of our situations.

My big concern is that schools rely on companies now to deliver their safeguarding training.

What I have seen of some companies is either flimsy (across all areas of safeguarding) or at worse incorrect - The National recycled an old pre Cass set of guidelines this last academic year despite Cass now being part of kcsie.

The Key is and was 100 times worse. (From what I’ve been told a trans identified male is on their safeguarding team.)

What ever is in kcsie could be diluted.

parents are going to have to continue to scrutinise the document themselves as well as current evidence and make a fuss with schools (using their complaint policy system.)

No. They’re very much open to a range of biases here.

Beliving that a child can and should change sex is a belief.

Many schools are operating under an ideology. Ideology is incompatible with safeguarding.

Agreed. It's worth reiterating that this demand for secrecy is a wholly activist led demand and bears no relationship to the careful management of safeguarding in schools that must offer guidance for all adults who have contact with children.

There are a number of aspects of the draft KCSIE guidelines that retain transactivist demands - we know what a grip they have on the government and DfE / civil service so it's not a surprise to see them still attempting to remove this vulnerable group of children from standard safeguarding practice. Hopefully the promotion of this professionally dangerous advice will be amended if there's enough feedback about the implications for these vulnerable children.

This.

This is why there is a need for compulsory policy and practice. To prevent adults with interesting opinions harming children with their own perceived good intentions and personal agenda.

Fortunately society takes a different view and knows that society has a responsibility to safeguard all children and not just selected groups. It's not a perfect system but to suggest that some children should be removed from statutory safeguarding is very irresponsible.
As we've been pointing out to transactivists for years.

Systems are trying to become more culturally aware to better serve and protect the communities they have a duty to. That's actually part of my job.

I disagree. I think if there are evidence based guidelines, then the professionals should be the right people due to their objectivity. I don't think they should discourage a child who wants to disclose to family, but i don't think they should force the family to know if a child discloses, either. Not in every case..

My lived experience of this with my DD’s school is that school staff very much DO NOT have the experience and education to make these decisions.

My experience is replicated (or worse) by other parents of gender questioning children socially transitioned at school.

Safeguarding is preventative and relies on foreseeing worst possible scenarios. As we know the worst possible scenarios are ALREADY playing out across multiple schools in the UK ( and the research this thread is about confirms this). A position that states that parents must always be told unless clear risk of harm means SS must be informed is obviously proportionate under the circs.