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/

This thread isn't about one man. It's about nationwide safeguarding failures in education.

Someone may well be a massive dickhead online and in real life, but that doesn't mean they can't query the law (via appropriate means).

I note in your earlier workplace example, you describe the girl as "lovely". Safeguarding applies to unlovely children too. As I say, you reveal much about yourself and your professionalism.

I agree TwoLoons.

Cecilia you are being actively unpleasant and picking on a poster. Please stop this.

To be clear, the school failed to inform him - and every other parent - that they required their teenage daughters to strip in front of teenage boys, to improve those boys mental health.

No safeguarding protocols were or are followed.

Would you like to clearly condemn that as you have been asked too or are the issues involved far too complicated?

"Be afraid of me" is apparently to be rejected as violent when it actually doesn't convey violence but it does convey being taken to court and being exposed for making a flawed safeguarding decision.

Whereas, a man suggesting that bigots should be assaulted by splintering rolling pins is just colloquial banter?

There is some inconsistency here.

SSSiS said "professionals should be very very afraid".....in the context of a court case.

As in Jo Phoenix's case against the OU, when various academics were dragged sulkily onto the stand to admit under oath that they'd signed a letter without actually reading it, because that's what everyone else was doing. Damn straight people should be fearful of their professional reputation when they act like teenagers.

Quoting as it is clear that there has been some deliberate twisting here

"the professionals should be very very afraid." is indeed not remotely like ""Be afraid of me". That general tone."

This is not a threat of violence.

It is a threat that the organisations and the people who have made the decisions that will be challenged in court should be concerned about their safeguarding failures being publicly discussed, analysed and exposed.

I’m not sure why you’re failing to understand that if a child claims their parents may be abusive, that is not a justification for a school to collude the the child to keep secrets from the parents on ANY topic.

There are proper protocols and support to cover these situations and they should be followed without exception.

If a child is proposing to self diagnose as ‘trans’ that is an issue that teachers are not qualified to deal with and they must refuse all changes requested on the back of that. Once it reaches the threshold that PP previously proposed it should be put through the prescribed channels the same as any other safeguarding issue.

The approach you are advocating for is what trans activist organisations were pushing for years and children have suffered harm.

They'll have to, because they're breaking equality law.

How come you don't agree with Johnny in Jane's changing room, in one post, but then claim that the school do agree with it and won't change their mind - and you don't appear to see much wrong with that.

What 'other dad' are you talking about?

And if a parent (male or female) is an arsehole to staff, why give them a gold plated reason to be right?

Why are you attacking this PP with accusations of ‘toxic masculinity’ and now accusations of violent and toxic language and behaviour?

We can all see what he’s posted and you twisting his words and making stuff up isn’t going to work.

Btw the school don’t just ‘disagree’ with him - they are blatantly refusing to follow the law. I thought you were very knowledgable and keen on safeguarding - why are you attacking a dad that is advocating for safeguarding for the female students in that schools to prevent them being forced to change in front of a boy?

Indeed. Arseholery doesn't alter the school's wrong doing.

Not to mention the fact that anyone who has even a passing understanding of trans issues will know that children are often told by the trans community online that their parents will definitely hate them for adopting a trans identity and will try to force them to change their minds, and that the parents are therefore evil and bigoted and not to be trusted - before a child has even considered telling their parents. A school cannot simply accept at face value a claim by a child that their parents will be abusive if they learn about the child’s supposed trans identity.

So politely but determinedly writing and talking to the headteacher (a man I believe), governors, external bodies with an interest in safeguarding, insurers, politicians etc etc over a long period, and then as a last resort taking legal action because no one else has taken any measures to protect girls at this school ... is "using fear and intimidation or violence and violent language"?

@SingleSexSpacesInSchools has every reason to be angry at his concerns for his daughter and other girls at the school, and their discomfort and safety, being ignored. It is clear that he has worked very hard on controlling that anger and directing it along the correct safeguarding and legal channels, with huge patience and persistence. The professionals who have blocked him at every turn are entirely in the wrong and have shown themselves not trustworthy.

What 'other dad' are you talking about?

I think he goes to another school.

Methinks somebody has self-identified as the definer of all correct language and thought, if we could all just affirm this and meekly slink away, that would be the Righteous thing to do.

Across multiple topics, no less.

Exactly. And some children can tell lies - I knew a girl who accused her parents of abuse so she could get a council flat (many years ago).

Kids can do and say some very odd things (because they are kids) and adults must be careful what they do with that.

Not to mention, as PP pointed out, teachers must be very careful to protect themselves from legal action by following the rules and protocols. If they take decisions they don’t have the authority or expertise to take (like when to keep a secret either a child) they are open to accusations. If a teacher participated in alienating my child from me I would certainly be looking at my legal options.

Given that legal action is imminent, it's great that SSSiS is ignoring openly provocative personal comments.

There's no doubt certain people will be poring over his words looking for an opportunity to discredit him.

I'll bet its the same one as the 'other women' talking about SSSIS's imaginary faults go to.

SSSIS I really want to know when you became a bastion for white feminism. I mean, my hat is off; all the bull you've been fighting for months on behalf of your daughter and you still have time to do the white feminism too. And apparently 'wokery'. I don't suppose you could do anything about Starmer and Trump could you? In a lunch break or something? And the potholes are a bit of an issue too if you're looking to fill a spare hour this weekend.

This is just silly hyperbole.

Everyone is allowed to advocate for their own cause. Let’s save the accusations of violence for those threatening to fuck women with splintered rolling pins, shall we?

I think Glove is referring to the Dad in this story.

GlovedhandsCecilia · Today 11:48:
'I think he sounds like the angry dad's that I protect children from all the time.

A couple.years ago I.worked with a lovely young girl who was school refusing, why? Becauae her father had a bee in his bonnet about something, embarrassed her in front of the whole school and was extremely aggressive to her female teachers.

He had 50/50 custody. We thankfully helped her and her mum get it changed so she was not expected to spend that time with him any more. He didnt give a shit about her schooling. He just wanted another medium where he could control and dominate.'

So this post is a follow on about the same people.

GlovedhandsCecilia · Today 12:22:
'The other dad had a really good point too. His was about toilets even, but being able to use the toilet freely. I agree with him. What nobody agreed with is how he went about it, how he behaved towards staff and how he dismissed his daughter's worsening mental health in his quest to be right.

That is why his daughter ultimately distanced herself from him as soon as she knew she could without her mum getting in trouble.'

So what is the message here?
'Dads! Don't make good points in the wrong tone, or people like me will help you lose custody of your children.'

There must be more to this.
Or less to it.

The other dad had a really good point too. His was about toilets even, but being able to use the toilet freely. I agree with him. What nobody agreed with is how he went about it

Unfortunately to get anything at all done in this world, a certain level of arseholeishness is a prerequisite.

Writing sternly worded letters and using the correct legal processes is one thing. Leaving bottles of piss on doorsteps and smashing windows is another.

Yeah, I don't get it from that description either. Why did anything have to escalate, or get worse, if his point was correct?

And I don't quite know what using the toilet freely means? Girls can use it whenever they want? I don't know if that is allowed. It certainly wasn't when I was at school because the bloody class would've been empty 90% of the time.

But I should imagine that's changed.

'Dads! Don't make good points in the wrong tone, or people like me will help you lose custody of your children.'

A few years ago, I would have thought there must be more to this. However, in recent years I am no longer sure.

The amount of times we get told on here that if we write about situations and facts accurately but in a way that some people find objectionable, they simply cannot read it or engage with it. How many fucking times do we see, 'I agree but you swore / used correct sex language / were blunt' so I will not answer you sometimes on this board.

To find out that some of these people are involved in safeguarding is concerning. To hear that some people with very low personal boundaries are involved in safeguarding adds to that concern.

I was reflecting on the keenness to safeguard against all safeguarding advice and policy yesterday, compared with today's criticism of a father safeguarding his child. Then it dawned that the coherent position of both was the common factor of wishing to dismiss and override the parent/child bond. Which is a well known safeguarding flag by itself. Children become greatly more vulnerable when an adult separates them from their natural protectors.