Secondary School Policy Updates post KCSIE 2026 with regard to single sex spaces, trans identifying children etc - have you seen any?

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Half curious, half it supports my case in Brighton - has anyone seen any at all anywhere?

Only found one so far and to say it is short is an understatement.. https://www.swinton.coopacademies.co.uk/googledrive/?gdfid=1vjRS9kF_l-g_etF-l_xPyAmwUq1pK56pjr2uBmujH3k&pid=0&title=Safeguarding+and+Child+Protection+Policy#h.8k7o5qf3sqk1

Not yet- we had the basic safeguarding and KCSIE training today, and then have to use Flick to do the Level 1 safeguarding tomorrow. It will be interesting to see the take that Flick has on it.

The basic training just highlighted that there had been some changes "including around children who are questioning their gender", which is at least a better way than it has been phrased in the past.

We also have to read every page in KCSIE tomorrow.

I will report back.

The gender questioning guidelines are not in part one which all staff must now read, unfortunately.

There'll be a lot of minimising in those schools who've actively been pushing GI at children, especially those who've promoted parental alienation and transitioning children in secret from parents. They're never going to expose what they've done by making a fuss about it.
Hopefully they're a minority.

Highlighted at our inset as a change to the guidance. Very clear around toilets and changing rooms being single sex.

Flick training on Safeguarding Level 1

Everyone in the school has to do this.

That's emotive and unprofessional. It's an opinion and has no place in statutory safeguarding training. Especially if the training omits to clarify the details.
Unfit for purpose.

Oh I know - and I said similar in my post course feedback

Oh I know - and I said similar in my post course feedback.

Just about to do the KCSIE training now...

Flick KCSIE

How about making all the other children pretend for you even if they don't want to and they don't see you as the sex you aren't? That's literally the definition of emotional abuse in KCSIE.

We need consequences and firings now. This is ridiculous.

Thanks for the heads up @WeMeetInFairIthilien

It does clearly say "a no-exceptions rule on toilets, changing rooms and accommodation"

Again, every single member of staff in over 100 schools has to read this, in our MAT

It does clearly say "a no-exceptions rule on toilets, changing rooms and accommodation"

Clearer image...

Single sex sports and spaces...

Interesting..." all staff, including sports staff, should read and understand the gender questioning children guidance, and parents should be consulted on related arrangements. Overnight accommodation policy should reflect the new same-sex rules"

Apart from anything else, it astounds me that no-one has thought 'hmmm, we're hemorrhaging teachers and support staff over conditions in schools, maybe making it seem literally impossible to do the right thing in this situation isn't going to help that'.

If you can't emotionally abuse the other children via social transition and it's against the law on single sex spaces, and the training is saying NOT socially transitioning a child who wants it (or whose parents want it) is emotional abuse, then there's no way out, surely? Except to quit at the sign of any 'gender questioning' children in the school.

Obviously the Flick bit about emotional abuse if you don't transition a child on their demand is absolutely wrong and illegal in fact, as not in line with KCSIE. However, if you're taking it at face value it's a lose-lose situation for all school staff. They just can't do the right thing for safeguarding for all children as soon as there's a gender questioning child in the school.

Anyway, new line for Oreogate maybe - not giving a child oreos on demand if they say it's part of their identity, clearly emotional abuse. (sarcasm obviously).

Is this the old training or the new? It's totally at odds with some of the other statements e.g. around single sex spaces.

If single sex spaces exist you can't 'affirm' a child fully.

Honestly if those statements are in the same guidance teachers must feel really fucked. It's completely incoherent.

First image was the Flick Level 1 Child Safeguarding training.

All the other images were from the Flick KCSIE statutory training.

Oh well, it's as bad as I thought then. Can you feedback in teacher mode pointing out the contradictions and incoherence, then question why school budget is being spent on this? (presuming it is).

How is this better than just reading KCSIE? It really doesn't seem to be at all.

Courses and training incorrectly 'Interpreting' the safeguarding documents school staff should be reading and are more than capable of reading is a grift that needs to stop because it's how a lot of the law breaking has happened.

It's also eating up education funds better spent on books and supplies.

I see nothing in any of the screenshots that will help staff in any way more than just reading KCSIE. If anything it's all less clear.

Well, if none of these things are happening then you have nothing to fear from KCSIE. Phew.

Funny how the notion of safeguarding children is so unacceptable to some. Hurling insults around when you've not got the skills or insight to discuss safeguarding children is very revealing.

Hmmm... TPA deletions increasing?🤔

To be fair (unless I've missed something) the Flicker KCSIE training seems like an impartial summary?
It's the emotive paragraph about emotional abuse and gender questioning children that's problematic (the Level1 safeguarding)

On the contrary, they need safeguarding from people like you, who think social transitioning is ok, when it is clearly not (Cass Review). Teachers hiding information from parents is not right.
(This was a reply to TransParentlyAnnoyed (iirc), saying that teacher's hiding social transition were just doing their jobs - post disappeared.)